TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


^^G/CALStW^^ 


Incoui'Orated  a.  D.  1799 


TOIUME  H,  PACES  363-538  JANUSRY,  1913 


The  Literary  Relations  of 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 

with 

Their  Bearing  on  Date  and  Place 
of  Authorship 


BY 


BSZ795 


ORA  DELMER  FOSTER,  Ph.D. 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY 

BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  D.D.,  Litt.D.,  LL.D 


Jff 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1913 


IV_-^     V-^      V  I 


{ ^  OCT  14  i 

TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  V)^, 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 

Incorporated  A.  D.  1799 

VOLUME  17,  PACES  363-538  JANUARY,  1913 

The  Literary  Relations  of 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 

with 

Their  Bearing  on  Date  and  Place 
of  Authorship 


BY 


ORA  DELMER  FOSTER,  Ph.D. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 


BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  D.D.,  Litt.D.,  LL.D 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1913 


c/ 


WEIMAR :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 


PAGE 

370 


Part  I.     THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHEES 


Tertallian 

Clement  of  Alexandria 

Irenaeus    . 

Papias 

II  Clement 

Justin  Martyr 

Barnabas 

Hermas     . 

Didache    . 

Polycarp 

Testament  of  the  Twelv 

Ignatius    . 

Clement  of  Rome    . 


e  Patriarchs 


381 
381 
381 
381 
381 
382 
384 
388 
392 
393 
396 
397 
398 


Part  II.     THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS 

Galatians 

I  Thessalonians 

II  Thessalonians 

I  Corinthians 

II  Corinthians 
Romans     . 
Ephesians 
Colossians 
Philemon 
Philipplans 

I  Timothy 

II  Timothy       . 
Titus    .      . 

Marked  Text  Showing  Possible  Sources 
Dependence  of  I  Peter  upon  the  Pauline  Epistles 
Hebrews 
"Q"  Source     . 
Markan  Source 
Peculiar  to  Matthew 
Peculiar  to  Luke     . 
Acts 


411 
414 
416 
417 
421 
424 
442 
455 
459 
459 
460 
462 
463 
466 
472 
480 
492 
495 
499 
600 
502 


366 


Contents 


James        ........ 

.     508 

Jude          .                  .         .         .         .         ... 

.     518 

Revelation 

.     519 

I  Jolin 

.     522 

II  Jolm 

.     525 

Ill  John • 

525 

John          ........ 

.     525 

BIBLIOGEAPHY 

.     533 
.     536 

INTRODUCTION 

Professor  Benjamin  "W.  Bacon. 

There  are  few  writings,  if  any,  besides  First  Peter,  the  accurate 
determination  of  whose  date  is  a  matter  of  greater  moment  to  the 
student  of  Christian  origins.  Datings  vary  from  before  A.D.  50 
to  115,  or  later  ;  and  with  the  question  of  date  that  of  authenticity 
is  inextricably  bound  up.  Early  tradition  is  unanimous  in  placing 
the  death  of  Peter  under  Nero.  Yet  Ramsay,  stalwart  defender  as 
he  is  of  the  Petrine  authorship,  feels  compelled  to  date  it  under 
Domitian,  compelled  by  the  imphcations  of  the  Epistle  itself  regard- 
ing official  treatment  of  Christianity.  For  First  Peter  speaks  of 
"  sufferings  accomplished  among  the  brethren  throughout  the  world, 
penalties  appropriate  to  murderers  and  thieves  visited  upon  them 
"  for  the  name  of  Christ."  In  fact  this  "  fiery  trial  "  which  has 
come  upon  the  church  through  the  work  of  Satan,  who  prowls 
about  it  like  a  roaring  lion  "  seeking  whom  he  may  devour  "  seems 
to  be  the  one  chief  occasion  of  the  writing.  It  stands  practically 
alone  among  the  epistles  in  its  complete  silence  as  to  doctrinal 
differences.  Ramsay'  sees  no  alternative  but  to  add  a  score  of  years 
more  or  less  to  the  traditional  life-time  of  Peter,  recognizing  the 
extreme  difficulty  of  identifying  these  general  persecutions  "  for 
the  name  "  with  the  local  onslaught  of  Nero  in  Rome,  of  which 
the  distinctive  feature  was  prosecution  for  flagitia  cohaerentia 
nomini. 

Even  were  it  found  for  any  reason  impossible  to  maintain  the 
Petrine  authorship,  accurate  determination  of  the  date  of  First 
Peter  would  be  of  immense  advantage  for  the  settlement  of  a  great 
number  of  disputed  points  of  criticism  ;  for  scarcely  any  writing 
of  the  canon  has  so  many  points  of  hterary  connection  with  others. 
Itself  widely  used  from"  an  extremely  early  date  it  employs  to  an 
extraordinary  extent  the  thought  and  phraseology  of  others.  It 
stands  in  the  very  midst  of  the  stream  of  literary  development. 
Almost  every  writing  of  the  New  Testament  has  lines  of  dependence 
leading    either  to  it,   or  from  it.      And   the  period    within    wliicli 


368  Benjamin   TV.  Bacon, 

nearly  all  authorities  agree  that  it  must  be  placed,  is  just  that  where 
light  is  most  needed,  the  dark  subapostohc  age  from  Nero  to  Trajan. 
Again  the  field  addressed  is  just  that  whose  history  we  most  need 
to  trace,  the  mission  field  of  Paul  in  Asia  Minor.  The  type  of 
teaching  (so  far  as  it  is  not  simply  Paul's)  comes  under  the  name 
of  Peter,  tempting  us  to  correlate  it  with  other  sources  claiming 
relationship  to  this  Apostle,  in  the  attempt  to  define  a  "  Petrinische 
Lehrbegriff  "  or  "  Petrinische  Stromung." 

These  literary  relations  are  undeniably  present,  and  in  ^  degree 
of  abundance  which  few,  we  think,  will  have  realized  who  have 
not  been  brought  face  to  face  with  the  facts  by  some  such  statis- 
tical survey  as  the  following  pages  afford  The  data  then  are  before 
us.  The  solution  of  the  problem  depends  simply  on  the  degree  of 
critical  acumen  with  which  we  can  pronounce  upon  extremely  de- 
licate questions  of  literary  employment,  more  especialty  of  priority 
in  emplo^-ment.  Fortunately  evidence  of  relationship  becomes 
rapidly  cumulative,  and  even  the  question  of  priority  is  not  hope- 
less when  real  impartiality  holds  the  scales. 

We  bespeak  the  careful  attention  of  students  of  New  Testament 
origins  to  the  data  presented  by  Dr.  Foster  ;  first,  because  of  the 
importance  of  the  subject,  whose  ramifications  extend  even  beyond 
what  we  have  already  so  briefly  indicated  ;  second,  because  of  the 
peculiar  hopefulness  of  the  effort  in  view  of  the  superabundance 
of  material  ;  third,  because  of  the  scholarly  reserve,  caution,  and 
objectivity  of  Dr.  Foster's  method  ;  which  allows  the  reader  full 
liberty  to  form  his  own  judgment,  and  aims  only  to  let  the  facts 
speak  for  themselves. 

The  present  writer  gladly  acknowledges  his  own  indebtedness 
to  the  careful  comparisons  and  statistics  of  Dr.  Foster.  The  out- 
come, a  date  not  far  from  90  AD.,  mth  dependence  of  First  Peter 
on  Ephesians,  Romans  and  Hebrews,  and  conversely  of  James, 
Clement  of  Rome,  and  other  writers  on  First  Peter,  tallies  indeed 
very  closely  with  results  previously  attained  by  an  important  group 
of  scholars.  But  the  evidence,  much  of  which,  though  available, 
has  hitherto  been  scattered,  acquires  far  more  convincing  power 
when  exhibited  in  due  order  and  classification.  The  inferences 
appeal,  even  to  one  who  has  traversed  the  field  before,  with  new- 
freshness  and  urgency.  To  not  a  few,  we  believe,  the  conviction 
will  be  brought  home  that  now,  at  last,  we  have  a  definite,  fixed 
point  in  the  sub-apostolic  age,  a  datable  literar^^  product  of  the 
Pauline  mission-field  twenty  years  after  Paul's  death  ;  instead  of 
a  floating,  indeterminate  possibilit3^      To  others  the  problem  will 


Introduction.  369 

seem  to  call  for  further  light.  To  all,  as  we  believe,  who  give  to 
Dr.  Foster's  data  the  attention  their  careful  compilation  deserves, 
the  time  will  prove  well  spent.  One  cannot  review  the  evidence, 
no  matter  what  the  verdict,  without  new  insight  into  the  history 
of  primitive  Christian  thought  and  literature. 

Yale  University.  Bexj.  W.  Bacon. 


INTRODUCTION 

by 
TheAuTHOR. 

In  this  age  of  Biblical  reconstruction,  there  is  probably  no  one 
thing  more  important  to  be  determined,  as  a  prerequisite  for  arriv- 
ing at  the  truth  concerning  the  History  of  Christian  Origins,  than 
the  authorship  and  date  of  early  documents.  Criticism  constantly 
forces  us  to  revise  and  rewrite  our  Histories.  Unfortunately  or 
otherwise,  criticism  has  robbed  us  of  our  "  certainty,"  as  concerns 
the  authorship  of  many  of  the  Canonical  books.  On  discovering 
that  dependence  cannot  be  placed  either  upon  the  tradition  con- 
cerning the  authorship  or  date  of  certain  documents  or  upon  the 
claims  these  documents  make  for  themselves,  the  modern  historian 
is  compelled  to  travel  a  more  difficult  path  than  his  predecessors. 
Though  this  new  path  be  difficult,  and  but  vaguely  defined  at  places, 
it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  an  understanding  of  the  early 
period  of  Church  History  that  the  critical  historian  follow  it  to  its 
very  end,  however  wearisome  the  journey.  Unless  the  dates  of  the 
early  sources  can  be  accurately  determined  the  historian  will  ever 
grope  about  in  uncertainty. 

As  great  and  important  results  were  effected  in  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  when  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  properly  located, 
so  also  the  correct  dating  of  certain  New  Testament  books  will 
prove  to  have  most  significant  results  for  the  History  of  Christian 
Origins.  It  is  as  reasonable  to  write  a  history  of  the  Hebrews  during 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  Millenium  before  our  Era  on  the  basis 
of  Deuteronomy  as  it  is  to  construct  a  history  of  the  early  Church 
on  the  basis  of  the  dates  sometimes  assigned  to  early  documents. 
Critical  History,  therefore,  necessarily  depends  upon  the  most 
careful  judgment  of  the  sources.  That  which  has  been  done  in 
analysing  the  sources  of  the  Hexateuch  has,  in  a  Hmited  degree, 
been  done  also  in  the  New  Testament.  Valuable  service  has  already 
been  done  in  bringing  to  hght  the  sources  both  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  the  Acts,  but  there  is  much  important  work  yet  to  be  done. 

Much  valuable  information  concerning  the  Apostolic  Age  is  supplied 
by  the  certain  dating  of  the  Pauhne  Epistles,  but  unfortunately 
we  are  left  in  doubt  concerning  the  Sub-Apostolic  Age,  because  of 
the  dubious  dates  assigned  to  the  documents  of  the  period.     For 


Ora  Dclmer  Foster,  Introduction.  371 

example,  there  is  little  agreement  among  scholars  concerning  the 
elate  of  Hebrews,  James  and  I  Peter,  though  they  are  of  the  utmost 
importance  for  an  understanding  of  this  age.  After  a  prolonged 
battle  over  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  scholars  enjoyed  a  brief  period 
of  truce,  but  they  have  again  been  summoned  to  action  by  Har- 
nack's  recent  challenge.  That  this  great  scholar  should  mox-e  the 
dates  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  so  far  back,  in  the  face  of  all  but 
universal  agreement,  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  need  of 
more  critical  study  of  the  literature  of  this  most  difficult  period. 

Probably  no  one  book,  if  properly  located,  will  throw  more  light 
on  this  puzzling  period  than  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  Though 
small,  it  contains,  in  proportion  to  its  size,  perhaps  more  points 
of  contact  with  other  New  Testament  literature  than  any  other 
book  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  exceedingl}'  important  that 
the  problems  in  connection  with  its  authorship  be  solved.  If,  as 
many  contend,  the  Epistle  is  genuine,  it  is  probabty  the  onlj'  written 
letdcy  we  possess  from  any  of  the  original  "  Twelve."  Since,  as 
is  agreed  by  scholars  of  all  schools,  the  Epistle  is  thoroughly 
Pauline,  we  should  have,  in  the  case  of  its  genuineness,  a  key  to  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  how  the  Pauline  and  the  Petrine  mission 
fields  were  ultimate^  united.  But  the  very  difficult  problem  of 
how  Peter  became  so  thoroughly  Paulinized  is  presented.  If  the 
great  Apostle  to  the  Circumcision  is  the  author,  then  important 
information  is  here  supplied  not  only  regarding  the  early  influence 
of  Paul  upon  Peter,  but  also  regarding  the  early  development 
of  Christian  thought  as  well  as  the  extent  of  the  Neronian  persecu- 
tions, which  in  that  case  would  be  alluded  to  in  I  Peter. 

But  if,  as  others  contend,  I  Peter  w^as  not  written  by  the  one  whose 
name  it  bears,  it  modifies  our  views  of  all  this  period.  In  this  case 
its  evidence  amounts  to  very  little  in  reconstructing  the  history  of 
the  period  until  it  is  definitely  located  in  time  and  place. 

Since  the  date  of  this  Epistlie  must  be  determined  before  certainty 
can  be  obtained  regarding  its  authorship,  the  present  inquiry  is 
concerned  about  its  location  in  time.  The  Literary  Relations  have 
a  very  small  bearing  upon  the  problem  of  authorship,  but  much  on 
the  question  of  date. 

Of  all  the  disputed  books  of  the  New  Testament  no  one  is  more 
important  to  locate.  Some  make  it  antedate  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
others  put  it  as  late  as  the  fourth  decade  of  the  Second  Century. 
Each  decade  between  these  extremes  has  its  claimants  for  its  date. 
Scholars  have  differed  just  as  widely  as  to  its  place  of  origin.  Some 
claim  that  it  was  written  at  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  others  that 


372  Ora  Dehncr  Foster, 

it  came  from  Babylon  in  Egypt  or  Old  Cairo,  while  still  others  hold 
that  is  was  penned  in  Babylon  on  the  Tiber,  or  Rome.  Obviousty 
therefore  the  location  of  the  time  and  place  of  authorship  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  Peter  would  be  of  the  greatest  value  to  the  History 
of  Christian  Origins. 

Two  means  of  dating  are  open  to  us,  i.  e.,  (1)  the  internal  evidence, 
so  far  as  concerned  with  the  happenings  of  the  time,  and  (2)  the 
literary  relations.  These  must  necessarily  be  kept  apart,  for  any 
suspicion  of  one  affecting  the  other  tends  to  invalidate  the  proof. 

Much  has  been  written  concerning  the  date  required  by  the  stratum 
of  theological  thought  found  in  the  Epistle.  Many  have  discussed 
at  great  length  the  date  implied  by  the  allusions  to  the  persecutions 
which  were  being  waged  against  the  Christians  at  the  time  of  writing. 
Some  also  have  elaborated  lengthy  arguments  concerning  the  date 
implied  from  the  incidental  references  to  ecclesiastical  institutions 
and  government.  Many  New  Testament  Introductions  and  Commen- 
taries on  I  Peter  point  out  some  of  the  more  probable  points  of 
contact  with  other  literature,  but  nowhere  have  these  relations 
been  exhaustively  or  systematically  treated.  This  thesis  is  limited 
to  the  last  line  of  approach,  i.  e.,  the  Literary  Relations. 

Nevertheless  we  may  mention  briefly  some  of  the  problems  con- 
nected with  the  external  conditions  of  the  Church  in  the  Sub- Apos- 
tolic Age.  Obviously  the  Epistle  was  written  during  a  fiery  ordeal, 
to  encourage  and  to  exhort  the  Christians  to  endure  to  the  end  and 
to  order  their  conduct  in  such  a  way  as  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible 
both  social  and  civil  odium.  The  h  Toi  x6g-ij.(.)  (5  ;  9)  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  Imperial  Government  had  adopted  a  definite  policy 
toward  the  Christians  throughout  the  world.  This  inference  seems 
to  be  borne  out  b\'  the  general  tenor  of  the  Epistle.  They  were 
persecuted  "  for  the  name."  Arnold  and  others  are  right  who  claim 
that  the  persecutions  of  Nero  did  not  extend  be3'0nd  the  Capital 
and  its  immediate  vicinity.  The  conflict  here  referred  to  cannot 
have  been  that  inaugurated  by  Nero,  nor  was  it  earlier  than  Domitian. 
Ramsay  has  no  real  evidence  for  saying  that  "  the  Neronian  policy 
was  resumed  under  Vespasian.  (C.  R.  E.  p.  282.)  Nor  need  we 
suppose  that  the  persecutions  alluded  to  are  later  than  Domitian,  as 
many  contend.  The  conditions  here  are  practically  the  same  as 
those  reflected  in  Hebrews,  Revelation  and  Clement  of  Rome.  These 
four  writings  have  a  common  background.  The}'  look  back  to  the 
Neronian  outbreak  as  something  that  occurred  in  former  times, 
whereas  the  present  one  is  a  "  strange  thing."  Apparently  then  this 
is  the  beginning  of  Governmental  punishment  of  the  Christians  as 


liilrodiiclion.  373 

such,  throughout  the  world.  A  study  of  the  five  theories  which  have 
been  proposed  concerning  the  persecutions  alhided  to  in  I  Peter, 
in  the  hght  of  the  data  at  hand,  has  led  the  present  writer  to  the 
conclusion  that  those  scholars  are  correct  who  claim  that  the  "  fier}' 
trial,"  M'hich  the  Christians  were  undergoing  when  the  Epistle  was 
written,  was  caused  by  Domitian.  Assuming  the  correctness  of  this 
conclusion  we  should  be  required  to  date  I  Peter  somewhere  between 
81  and  95. 

The  internal  conditions  of  the  Church  are  quite  clearly  reflected 
in  I  Peter.  There  is  a  distinct  advance  over  the  doctrine  as  presented 
by  Paul.  Though  Pauline  to  the  core,  I  Peter  seems  to  be  Post- 
Pauline  in  its  stage  of  doctrinal  development.  "  The  Christian's 
freedom  from  the  Law  is  assumed  in  a  genuine  Pauline  fashion  in 
2  ;  16.  The  tendency  is  present  to  give  to  the  ethical  side  of  the 
Christian  life  an  independent  value  which  it  lacks  in  Paul,  who 
always  lays  chief  stress  upon  its  religious  basis.  There  is  a  tendency 
also  to  emphasize  the  future  and  to  treat  faith  as  almost  synonymous 
with  hope  which  looks  forward  to  the  glory  of  Christ  and  his  saints, 
and  thus  furnishes  an  incentive  to  Christian  living,  instead  of  making 
it  as  clearly  and  distinctly  as  it  is  in  Paul  the  mystical  oneness  of  the 
believer  with  Christ.  And  so  baptism  in  the  same  way  takes  on  the 
aspect  rather  of  a  pledge  of  right  conduct  than  a  bond  between  the 
Christian  and  his  Lord.  Similarly  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  looked 
upon  not  simply  in  their  redemptive  value,  as  effecting  the  death 
of  the  flesh,  and  thus  the  believer's  release  from  its  bondage,  but 
also  in  their  moral  value  as  an  example  for  the  Christian.  This 
Epistle  bears  testimony  to  the  survival  after  Paul's  death  of  his 
conception  of  Christianity  in  a  somewhat  modified,  but  stiU  compa- 
ratively pure  form."  (McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age  p.  486  f.)  "  Christ, 
grace,  faith — these  are  the  foundations  of  Christianity.  The  threefold 
formula  even  appears  :  chosen  by  God,  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
reconciled  by  Christ.  The  struggle  against  Jewish  legalism  is  alto- 
gether past  and  yet  Paul's  main  dogma  remains,  that  redemption  is 
through  God's  grace  alone.  It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  many 
points  in  which  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  diverges 
from  St.  Paul  and  betrays  a  tendency  to  interpret  his  epistles  in  a 
catholic  sense."  (Wernle's  Beg.  of  Christianity,  Eng.  tr.  Vol.  I.) 
The  sinless  Christ  who  died  for  our  redemption  is  here  thought  of 
as  the  "Suffering  Servant  "  of  11  Isaiah.  This  thought  is  foreign 
to  Paul,  but  common  in  later  hterature.  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
preexistence  of  Christ  may  be  implied  if  not  expressed  in  1 ;  1  L  20. 
Though  many  scholars  think  that  this  doctrine  is  not  implied  here. 


374  Ora  Delmcr  Foster, 

others  assert  that  it  is,  e.  g.  Bevon,  Bigg,  Gioag,  Holtzmann,  Lechler, 
Pfleiderer,  Stevens,  etc.  The  Christologj'  of  I  Peter  occupies  a 
position  mid -way  between  Pan]  and  the  Johannine  Literature. 
It  also  suggests  Paul  on  the  one  side  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  on 
the  other.  (For  other  examples  see  McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age  p.  486  ; 
note  also  the  later  discussion  of  John.) 

The  book  reveals  no  traces  of  enemies  within  the  Church,  as 
Ephesians,  Colossians  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  but  the  enemies 
are  without.  Heresies  were  no  doubt  in  existence  at  this  time,  but 
they  were  for  the  time  overlooked,  in  the  more  pressing  need  of 
saving  the  Church  from  being  stamped  out  entirely  by  Imperial 
action.  The  silence  as  to  heresies  seems  to  be  as  easily  accounted 
for  on  the  assumption  that  the  Epistle  was  written  during  this  time 
of  external  hostility  as  if  it  were  written  before  the  heresies  alluded 
to  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  had  arisen. 

These  preliminary  conclusions  drawn  from  the  external  conditions 
are  very  important  for  an  understanding  of  the  Epistle,  but  they 
will  be  kept  separate  from  the  discussion  of  the  Literary  Relations. 

In  returning  to  the  problem  of  Literary  Relations,  it  may  be  said 
it  is  a  long  and  difficult  one  to  solve,  but  that  the  effort  is  fully 
recompensed  by  the  definite  results  that  attend  its  solution.  Know- 
ing as  we  do,  with  no  little  degree  of  certainty,  the  date  and  place 
of  authorship  of  the  greater  part  of  the  literature  related  to  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter,  the  determination  of  the  order  of  dependence  would, 
if  accurately  done,  also  determine  the  approximate  date  and  place 
of  this  Epistle.  It  is  hoped  therefore  that  the  following  study  may 
show,  with  some  degree  of  accuracy,  what  literature  I  Peter  pre- 
supposes  as  well   as  what   presupposes  it. 

The  aim  has  not  been  to  give  every  possible  point  of  contact  be- 
tween I  Peter  and  all  the  literature  considered,  but  an  effort  has  been 
made  to  record  what  seemed  to  the  author  to  be  the  more  important 
ones.  Many  more  resemblances  might  have  been  recorded,  but  the 
time  and  space  required  to  collate  them  would  not  be  justified  by 
the  results  obtained.  By  arranging  in  parallel  columns,  in  the 
original  language,  the  more  probable  points  of  contact,  it  is  thought 
that  a  basis  is  afforded  for  some  valuable  conclusions,  both  as  regards 
date  and  place  of  authorship. 

Bj'  the  very  nature  of  the  subject  little  new  material  can  be  ad- 
vanced. A  great  percent  of  the  parallels  tabulated  have  already 
been  pointed  out  by  others,  3^et  there  are  many  additional  ones 
discussed,  which  were  discovered  independently. 


Iiilrochictinu.  375 

The  method  adopted  in  this  thesis  is,  in  the  main,  that  followed 
by  the  Oxford  Committee,  in  their  excellent  little  book  entitled 
"  The  New  Testament  and  the  Apostolic  Fathers "  (1905.)  The 
parallels  are  arranged  in  textual  order.  The  order  of  probable  de- 
pendence is  shown  by  arranging  them  into  classes  A,  A*,  B,  C,  C — D, 
and  D.  Class  A  includes  those  books  which  mention  our  Epistle  b\' 
name.  Class  A*  comprehends  those  which  do  not  mention  the 
Epistle  b}'  name  but  concerning  which  there  is  no  real  doubt  in  the 
author's  mind.  In  class  B  are  found  those  which  reach  a  very  high 
degree  of  probability.  In  class  C  have  been  placed  those  which  are 
of  lower  degree  of  probability.  Class  C — D  represents  those  which 
give  reason  to  suspect  literary  acquaintance,  but  are  not  sufficient!}' 
suggestive  to  belong  in  class  C.  Class  D  includes  all  those  for  which 
the  evidence  affords  no  ground  for  judgment.  Doubtless  there  are 
books  placed  in  the  last  class  which  are  related  to  I  Peter,  but  since  the 
evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  it  they  may  be  classed  as  doubtful. 
For  example,  Colossians  shows  many  points  of  very  probable  connec- 
tion, but  since  these  points,  with  many  others,  are  also  found  in 
Ephesians,  it  cannot  be  claimed  with  any  degree  of  certainty  that  our 
author  knew  Colossians.  Under  the  respective  classes  named  above, 
the  parallels  have  been  arranged  in  textual  order  according  to  the 
letters  a*,  b,  c,  c — d,  and  d,  to  which  an  explanation  will  apply 
similar  to  that  given  in  connection  with  the  capital  letters.  The 
present  writer  has  ventured  to  assign  to  some  books  a  higher  degree 
of  probable  dependence  than  the  Oxford  Committee  has  done.  It 
would  seem  that  they  have  not  given  due  consideration  to  the  value 
of  cumulative  evidence.  A  book  containing  a  number  of  probable 
points  of  connection  deserves  a  higher  rating  than  any  single  passage 
in  it.  Again  more  evidence  should  be  attached  to  probable  points 
of  contact  which  show  close  contextual  connection.  Peculiar  words 
of  themselves  mean  but  little,  but  when  they  occur  in  suggestive 
connections  they  become  significant. 

Many  of  the  parallels  were  assigned  to  their  respective  classes  with 
much  hesitancy,  and  it  is  not  expected  that  their  classification  will 
meet  the  approval  of  those  who  may  read  them  reflectively,  but 
it  is  hoped  that  they  may  represent,  on  the  whole,  the  real  order 
of  connection.  The  notes  represent  in  part  the  author's  reasons 
for  the  various  classifications. 

The  books  of  the  Apostohc  Fathers  are  arranged  with  the  chrono- 
logical order  reversed,  beginning  at  the  point  of  positive  reference 
to  I  Peter  and  extending  backward  to  Clement  of  Rome.  Harnack's 
"  Chronologic  "  has  been  followed  in  the  main.     In  the  New  Testa- 


37G  Ora  Dehiter  Foster. 

ment,  the  order  proposed  by  Professor  Bacon  (Intr.  p.  280)  has  been 
adopted  with  few  exceptions. 

The  New  Testament  books  are  treated  as  wholes.  This  method, 
however,  is  not  followed  in  discussing  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Their 
sources  are  first  considered,  after  which  the  peculiarities  of  each  are 
reviewed  in  order.  Though  Acts  is  presented  as  a  whole,  attention 
has  been  called  to  the  comparative  degree  of  probable  dependence 
with  the  "  Petrine  "  and  the  "  Pauline  "  divisions  of  the  book. 
II  Peter  does  not  receive  separate  treatment  because  it  is  taken  as 
direct  testimony  to  I  Peter. 

The  application  of  the  method  described  above  has  secured  some 
significant  results,  which  are  presented  in  tabular  form  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  thesis. 

It  has  been  made  obvious  that  our  author  was  not  an  orTginal 
writer.  This  fact  has  proven  very  greatly  to  our  advantage  in 
locating  the  Epistle  by  its  literary  relations.  On  the  other  hand 
the  freedom  with  which  he  used  his  sources  makes  it  often  difficult 
to  determine  whether  he  was  influenced  by  a  certain  document 
or  whether  the  agreement  is  due  to  current  teaching.  He  was  an 
extensive  reader  but  no  slavish  copj.dst.  He  was  acquainted  with 
the  early  Christian  writings  as  well  as  with  the  LXX.  Scharfe, 
in  his  "Petrinische  Stromung",  shows  probably  as  clearly  as  anyone 
how  well  at  home  our  author  was  with  the  LXX,  though  it  must  be 
noted  that  he  has  frequently  overlooked  the  more  obvious  connection 
with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  in  his  zeal  to  make  a  strong  case. 

The  discussion  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  following  pages,  it 
is  believed,  shows  conclusively  that  our  Epistle  rests  directly  upon 
Paul,  more  especially  upon  Romans  and  Ephesians.  In  addition 
to  the  information  afforded  by  the  tables  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
thesis,  it  may  be  stated  that  no  less  than  fift}^  percent  of  the  text 
of  I  Peter  shows  a  possible  connection  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and 
a  great  many  references  find  parallels  in  as  many  as  three  of  Paul's 
letters.  This  fact  which  is  represented  by  the  218  parallels  tabu- 
lated, is  alone  sufficient  to  show  that  I  Peter  depends  upon  the  PauUne 
literature,  notwithstanding  the  recent  claim  that  no  reference  is  made 
to  this  Literature  for  a  century  or  more.^  It  can  be  said  with  a  rea- 
sonable degree  of  certainty  that  the  author  of  I  Peter  both  knew 
and  used  Romans  and  Ephesians.  There  is  much  in  the  points 
involved,   to  say  nothing  of  historical  considerations,   to  make  it 


1  W.  B.  Smith  in  "  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  "  (1906).     Ch.  V.  "  Saeculi 
Silentium  ". 


lutrodnction.  ill 

certain  that  I  Peter  depends  upon  Pau]  and  not  vice  versa  as  B. Weiss 
and  Kiihl  have  contended.  From  the  htcrary  relations  alone  then 
Ephesians  fixes  the  terminus  a  quo  for  I  Peter  at  about  GO  A.  D. 
Granting  with  Moffatt^  that  "  a  copy  of  Ephesians  came  back  to 
Rome  some  years  after  its  circulation  in  Asia,"  it  would  not  be  safe 
to  fix  the  earliest  possible  date  for  I  Peter  later  than  the  year  65. 

Irenaeus  (cir.  186)  is  the  first  concerning  whose  acquaintance  \Ndth 
I  Peter  there  is  absolute  certainty.  We  are  quite  certain  also  that 
Papias  (cir.  150)  knew  the  Epistle.  Doubt  cannot  well  be  enter- 
tained in  the  case  of  Polycarp  (cir.  115).  It  appears  highly  probable 
that  the  Johannine  Literature  (95—100)  presupposes  I  Peter.  Clement 
of  Rome  quite  certainly  used  it  as  early  as  the  year  95.  From 
the  literary  relations  alone,  therefore,  we  may  fix  the  termini  a  quo 
and  ad  quem  for  I  Peter  with  perfect  confidence  at  the  years  60 
and  95.  Granting  Moffatt's  view  to  be  correct,  three  decades  would 
still  be  open  for  the  date  of  this  Epistle. 

It  is  a  positive  gain  to  be  able  to  pin  this  Epistle  down  to  three 
decades,  but  it  would  be  of  still  greater  service  to  know  in  just  which 
one  it  should  be  located.  But  to  do  this  from  the  standpoint  of 
literary  relations  alone  requires  that  we  employ  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  that  are  themselves  difficult  to  locate.  Yet  if  these  doubtful 
writings  show  literary  connections,  they  have  mutual  service  to  render 
in  establishing  their  respective  dates.  Fortunately  for  us  this  is 
just  the  case. 

This  stud}^  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Epistle  of 
James  depends  upon  I  Peter.  If  then,  as  many  scholars  contend, 
Clement  of  Rome  knew  and  used  James,  I  Peter  must  have  been 
written  not  later  than  90.  At  all  events  it  would  seem  fair,  even 
granting  that  the  Oxford  Committee  was  correct  in  finding  no  proof 
of  connection  between  James  and  Clement,  to  fix  the  terminus  ad 
quem  for  I  Peter  at  the  year  90.  On  the  other  hand  it  appears  from 
our  study  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  presupposed  by  I  Peter. 
Practically  all  scholars  admit  that  Hebrews  depends  upon  Paul. 
This  then  would  require  that  we  fix  the  terminus  a  quo  for  I  Peter 
much  later  than  the  year  60.  But  how  much  later  ?  To  determine 
this  the  internal  as  well  as  external  evidence  of  Hebrews  will  be 
involved.  Yet  this  is  not  going  beyond  the  limits  of  our  discussion 
inasmuch  as  the  question  of  literary  relations  was  settled  inde- 
pendently. 

Since  both  Hebrews  and  I  Peter  were  written  by  thorough  students 
of  Paul  and  with  similar  motives,  and  under  similar  circumstances 
their  evidence  may  fairly  be  considered  as  supplementary.     Scholars 


378  Ora  Delmcr  Foster, 

are  xery  generally  agreed  that  Hebrews  is  removed  several  }-ears  from 
the  Xeronian  Persecution.  Granting  that  Heb.  11  ;  32  refers  to 
this  persecution,  12  ;  3  f .  certainly  points  to  another  outbreak 
against  the  Christians,  which  was  then  in  progress  but  which  had  not 
reached  its  fuU  height.  This  cannot  allude  to  the  Jewish  War  of 
66—70.  It  was  apparently  long  enough  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  for  them  to  have  become  reconciled  to  the  catastrophe. 
We  are  to  conclude  therefore,  so  it  seems,  \nth  Bacon.  Holtzmann, 
Jiilicher,  McGiffert,  ^loffatt,  Weizsacker,  \'on  Soden  and  others. 
that  the  persecutions  alluded  to  in  Hebrews  are  those  of  Domitian. 
If  these  conclusions  are  correct  I  Peter  could  not  have  been  written 
earlier  than  So. 

Incidentally  the  foregoing  study  has  afforded  an  earlier  limit  for 
the  Epistle  of  James,  as  well  as  a  later  limit  for  Hebrews.  If,  as  is 
here  maintained,  James  depends  upon  I  Peter  it  must  have  been 
wTitten  some  time  after  85,  and  not  early  as  many  contend.  But 
if,  as  we  believe,  this  study  shows,  I  Peter  presupposes  Hebrews  and 
the  latter  comes  from  the  reign  of  Domitian,  we  shovild  be  required 
to  date  James  somewhere  between  90  and  95.  Hebrews  would  in 
that  case  be  dated  between  81  and  85  and  I  Peter  between  85  and  90. 

It  may  be  noted  in  passing  that  Pliny,  in  his  correspondence  with 
Trajan  in  112,  states  that  in  BithxTiia,  one  of  the  proWnces  to  which 
I  Peter  is  addressed,  "  some  of  the  accused  assert  that  they  forsook 
Christianity  twenty-five  years  ago."  (Ad  Traj.  96,  6.)  This 
apostacy  of  cir.  87  may  ven*'  probably  have  been  due  to  the  perse- 
cutions that  are  alluded  to  in  I  Peter,  whose  author  aims  to  prevent 
this  ver\   thing. 

We  may  next  consider  the  place  of  authorship  of  our  Epistle. 
It  is  clear  from  Table  III,  p.  535.  that  the  literature  which  shows 
the  closest  relation  to  I  Peter  was  either  \\Titten  in  Rome  or  Asia 
Minor,  or  circulated  in  those  ree^ions  ver\'  earh .  Nowhere  in  the 
whole  realm  of  early  Christian  literature  does  there  seem  to  be  any 
^^Titing.  not  ha\'ing  to  do  \\-ith  the  regions  just  mentioned,  that  shows 
any  connection  ^^-ith  I  Peter  earher  than  Pseudo-Bamabas  cir.  135. 
On  the  other  hand  there  are  many  in  these  locahties  which  show  a 
very  probable  hterarv'  connection.  Galatians,  \\Titten  from  Corinth 
and  circulating  in  Asia  !Minor.  was  ver\"  probably  kno%\'n  by  our 
author.  I  Corinthians,  written  at  Ephesus,  seems  to  have  been  kno\\"n 
by  him.  There  are  reasons  also  to  suspect  that  he  knew  II  Co- 
rinthians, which  would  be  apt  to  circulate  in  this  region.  Apparently 
he  knew  Hebrews,  the  eWdence  of  whose  existence  comes  to  us  first 
from  Rome.     It  appears  highh*  probably  that  the  author  or  authors 


Introduction.  379 

of  the  Johannine  literature,  who  wrote  from  Ephesus,  knew  I  Peter. 
So  also  Ignatius,  writing  from  the  same  region.  We  are  confident 
that  Polycarp,  of  Smyrna,  was  acquainted  with  our  Epistle.  It 
win  be  noticed  in  the  Table  that  there  are  none  of  those  marked 
"A*  "  earlier  than  Polycarp  which  do  not  show  a  direct  connection 
with  Rome,  e.g.  Romans,  Ephesians,  and  Clement  of  Rome.  James 
may  also  be  added  to  this  list,  inasmuch  as  the  first  echoes  which  we 
have  of  it  are  in  Rome.  All  the  literature  marked  "  B  "  or  "  C  "  earlier 
than  160  also  shows  direct  connection  with  Rome  or  Asia  Minor  or 
both,  unless  it  be  Titus,  which  will  hardly  be  counted  an  exception. 

The  silence  of  the  literature  of  other  places,  as  well  as  that  of 
these  localities  in  the  period  assigned  to  I  Peter  is  quite  as  signifi- 
cant as  the  direct  references  ;  for  manifestly  some  time  must  be 
allowed  for  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  extend,  and  more  as 
the  remoteness  increases.  Both  lines  of  evidence  converge,  therefore 
upon  the  conclusion  that  I  Peter  was  written  in  Rome  cir.  87—90. 

In  addition  to  the  conclusion  just  reached  regarding  the  date  and 
place  of  authorship  of  I  Peter,  this  study  has  other  important  results. 
The  bearing  that  it  has  on  the  problem  of  dating  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
should  not  be  overlooked.  If,  as  Harnack  claims,  the  Gospels  are 
so  early  one  is  surprised  not  to  find  them  reflected  more  in  I  Peter. 
It  may  be  claimed  that  the  author  was  acquainted  with  the  Synoptic 
tradition  in  some  form,  but  there  is  very  little,  if  indeed  an3^thing, 
to  indicate  that  he  knew  our  Gospels.  There  is  no  real  evidence 
that  he  knew  the  "  Q  "  source.  The  real  evidence  for  literary 
connection  between  I  Peter  and  the  ^Markan  source  is  reduced  to 
I  Peter  2  ;  7  =  Mark  12  ;  10.  (See  discussion  on  Mk.  Ex.  5.)  Were 
we  to  grant  that  these  passages  show  a  direct  literary  connection, 
there  is  nothing  to  prove  the  priority  of  Mark.  There  seems  to  be 
nothing  peculiar  to  Matthew  or  Luke  which  would  justify  the  claim 
of  literary  connection.  It  seems  strange  that  our  author,  susceptible 
as  he  was  to  literary  influences,  did  not  make  more  use  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  if  they  were  written  as  early  as  Harnack  contends.  This 
silence  is  against  Harnack's  position.  It  would  seem  therefore,  if 
for  example,  Mk.  12  ;  10  is  directly  connected  with  I  Peter,  that 
the  priority  must  be  given  to  the  latter  and  not  to  the  former. 

The  Johannine  Literature  is  also  involved  in  the  dating  of  I  Peter. 
If  the  conclusions  reached  here  are  correct,  namely  that  the  Johannine 
Literature  presupposes  I  Peter  as  a  necesssary  connecting  link  between 
it  and  Paul,  they  have  a  very  important  bearing,  not  only  on  the 
development  of  doctrine  in  Asia  Minor,  but  also  on  the  vexed  problem 
of  the  Johannine  authorship.  Many  ideas  merely  suggested  by 
Tran-s.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  26  January,  1913. 


380  Ora  Delmer  Foster,  Introduction. 

Paul,  which  were  more  fully  expressed  in  I  Peter,  are  found  in  the 
Johannine  Literature  in  fully  developed  form  ;  in  speeches,  narratives, 
prayers,  etc.  That  is  to  say  these  anecdotes  seem  to  presuppose 
the  "  Petrine  "  development.  Apparently,  then,  the  Pauline  thought 
travelled  in  part  by  way  of  I  Peter. 

This  study  also  has  a  significant  bearing  on  other  problems  of 
Church  History.  It  shows  the  influence  that  Rome  wielded  over  the 
Pauline  Churches  in  Proconsular- Asia  at  this  very  early  period.  The 
relations  of  Roman  Christianity  to  that  of  Asia  Minor  were  indeed 
of  the  most  delicate  kind  (cf.  Rom.  1  ;  11  f.  and  15  ;  15-29).  The 
process  of  annexation  of  the  great  Pauline  mission  field  after  Paul's 
death  was  of  the  utmost  concern  and  required  the  greatest  possible 
skill.  This  could  only  be  effected  from  Rome,  not  from  Jerusalem, 
and  necessarily  from  the  "  Petrine  "  wing,  which  we  have  reason 
to  believe  became  dominant  in  Rome  between  70  and  95.  This 
our  Epistle  helped  to  accomplish  by  endorsing  Paul's  doctrine  and 
fellow  workers  (cf.  I  Peter  5  ;  12  with  the  contemporary  Acts  15  ; 
13-17). 


Paet  I.-APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

TERTULLIAN 

A 

Scorpiace  XII   (written  cir.  220)   "  Addressing  the  Christians  of 
Pontus,  Peter,  at  all  events,  says  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  2  ;  20. 

CLEMENT  or  ALEXANDRIA 
A 
(Cir.  200) 
INSTRUCTOR  I,  6.     "  Peter  says  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  2  ;   1-3, 

IREN^US 
A 

(Cir.  186) 
IV,  ix,  2  "  Peter  says  in  his  Epistle  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  1  ;  8. 

IV,  XV  i,  5  "And  for  this  reason  Peter  says"  .  .  .  quoting  I  Pt.  2;  16. 

V,  vii,  2  "  And  this  it  is  which  has  been  said  also  by  Peter  "... 
quoting  I  Pt.   1  ;   8. 

PAPIAS 

A 

(145-160) 
Eusebius  (H.  E.  Ill,  xxxix,  17)  quotes  Papias  as  follows  ;  ot£/pY]Tai 

S'  a(j-:bc,  [JiapTuptat?  o^tzo  ttjc  'Iwavvou  'Kpoxipac  £7it(7TO>.9]c  xai  octto  ttJi; 
IIsTpo'j  6[j.oto)r. 

II  CLEMENT 

(Cir.  170) 
C 

c 
(1)  II  Clem.  XIV,  2  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 

l<pavsp(60'"/]    Bs    £7c'   say^axojv    twv      cpavspfo&svTOi;  Be  etc'  ec/dcTou  twv 

Y][j.spwv  i'va  rj[j,a?  gmtci  /povcov  Bi'  6p.ac. 

This  striking  resemblance  receives  additional  significance  when  we 
note  with  Benecke  (N.  T.  in  Apost.  Fath.)  that  Sc%b  t^?  lYxk(\<noc(; 
T%  ^o)?](;  (XVI,  1)  occurs  in  the  same  contextual  connection.  Cf. 
lib-oi  ^o)VT£(;  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  4.  Bishop  Lightfoot  thinks  the  context 
of  II  Clement  at  this  point  refers  to  Eph.  1;   23. 


382  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(2)  II  Clem.  XVI,  4  I  Pt.  4 ;  8 

Although  this  is  an  exact  parallel  we  cannot  be  certain  that  it  is 
quoted  from  our  Epistle.  It  occurs  also  in  I  Clem.  XLIX,  5,  in  which 
place  it  is  discussed. 

The  above  parallels  are  close  even  in  details,  yet  the  probabilities 
of  dependence  are  of  a  lo\\'  degree. 

JUSTIN 

(Cir.  153-155) 

B 

b 

(1)  Trypho  116  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

ap/^ispairixov    to    a};rjQ'iv6v    ysvo;      ujj.sTc  Bs  ysvo;  I/vIsxtov  (3aailsiov 
£(7[X£V  i^]x£i<;  ispa-usuixa,  sO-vo?  aytov 

No  other  book  iu  the  Bible  furnishes  a  passage  so  nearly  resembling 
this  as  I  Pet.  2  ;   9. 

(2)  Trypho  138  I  Pt.  3 ;  18-21 

Mr.  Bigg  thinks  there  is  a  reference  here  to  I  Pt.  3  ;  18—21.  Inas- 
much as  the  story  of  Noah  is  commented  upon  in  the  same  manner, 
it  seems  to  imply  a  knowledge  of  this  passage.  Noah  is  a  type  of 
Baptism,  the  eight  persons  are  dwelt  upon,  and  we  find  close  together 
avaysvvav,  Sisaojbrj,  Bi'  OBaTo;.  Further  similarity  is  noted  in  re- 
ference to  Jesus'  resurrection  and  exaltation,  following  in  the  same 
order  as  in  our  Epistle. 

c 

(3)  Apol.  1  ;  61  uses  avayevvaco,  which  is  peculiar  to  I  Peter.  The 
thought  however,  in  this  connection  is  nearer  that  of  John  3  ;  5, 
than  that  of  our  Epistle.  In  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  the  word  refers  to  the  new 
birth  of  a  "  lively  hope,"  accomplished  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
In  the  other  reference  (I  Pt.  1  ;  23)  the  Christian  is  born  again  not 
of  corruptible  seed  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  by  baptism  as  in  Justin. 

(4)  Trypho  116  I  Pt.  4  ;  12 

-Zri^   7CUpO)G-£tOC,    YjV    ZUpOUG-lV    'J\}.S.Z  .        [XYj    ^ZVlCzijb-t    TT]    £V    6[j.Tv    7;upo)<T£i 

6  T£  BiapoXo?  xai  ol  auTou  6TCT,p£-      7i:p6<;  TCEipacjAov  6[xTv  yivoi>.ivri. 

Bigg  thinks  Justin  quite  clearly  alludes  to  I  Peter  here.  He 
rightly  points  out  that  Truptodic  in  this  sense  is  peculiar  to  I  Peter. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  383 

We  should  not  overlook  the  fact  however,  that  although  the  word 
has  a  different  application  in  Rev.  18 ;  9,  18,  the  thought  is  quite 
like  this  section. 

(5)  Trypho  119  I  Pt.  2  ;  10 

Aaoc  dcytoi;  lajj-ev 

It  is  obvious  that  Bigg  is  right  in  saying  "  Justin  is  here  referring 
to  Isa.  52  ;  12."  The  suggestion  might  come  either  from  Rom.  9  ; 
25  ff,  or  I  Peter. 

d 

6)  Trypho  35  I  Pt.  1  ;  19 

Here  Justin  exhorts  not  to  blaspheme  "  Him  who  ....  is  the 
a[j.(o[j.oc,  and  in  all  things  irreproachable  Christ  Jesus."  Well  does 
Bigg  cite  Heb.  9;  14  as  a  possible  reference,  for  it  seems  more  prob- 
able that  Justin  had  it  in  mind,  rather  than  I  Pt.  1 ;  19,  inasmuch 
as  he  would  have  given  in  all  probability  a  better  connection  to 
both  the  thought  and  words,  ^c,  apoti  ajxoijJLO'j  xol  a(77:i>.ou  Xptaxou. 
Cf.  also  Eph.  1 ;   4,  5  ;  27,  Col.  1  ;  22,  Jude  24,  Rev.  14  ;  5. 

(7)  Trypho  110  I  Pt.  1  ;  19 

We  have  here  a  parallel  to  the  one  just  mentioned  in  35.  In 
the  later  chapter  of  the  "Dialogue,"  the  word  "ao-7:ilo?,"  with 
others,  is  used  to  point  out  the  perfection  of  Jesus  as  "  the  most 
righteous  and  only  spotless  and  sinless  one."  Our  Epistle  com- 
pares Jesus'  blood  to  that  of  a  lamb  without  spot  or  blemish.  I  Pt. 
1  ;  19  .  .  .  at[j.a-i,  wc  a[j.o)[j.ov  xai  acrmXou  XpiaTroQ.  The  word  here 
refers  directly  to  ap.vo;  rather  than  to  XpnTToti  as  Bigg  would  make 
it.  Similar  usage  may  be  seen  in  I  Tim.  6;  14  i.  e.,  TY]prj(7ai  ts 
tt;/'  IvtoAt;/  ao-TTiXov.     Cf.  also  Jas.  I  ;  27  and  II  Pt.  3  ;  14. 

(8)  Trypho  114  I  Pt.  2  ;  6 

ToD  axpoycoviKiou  Xibou  is  very  suggestive  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  but  on 
close  examination  it  becomes  evident  that  Justin's  mind  was  imbued 
with  the  O.  T.  references,  more  especially  Isa.  28  ;  16.  Yet  it  may 
have  been  suggested  by  I  Peter. 

Mr.   Bigg  rightly  concludes  that  it  is  probable  but  not  certain 

that   Justin  knew  I   Peter.     Chapters   114,   119,    and  138    of  the 

"  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  taken  together,  intensify  the  proba- 
bilities of  literary  dependence. 


384 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


I  Pt.  1 ;  17 

xai  d  -Kocxipa  smxaXsio-D'S,  tov 
oi'Kp(JG()i7:o'ky][x%Ti<)c,  xptvovTa  xaxa 
TO    IxdcTirou    spyov,    sv    cp6[3q)  tov 

a"T:pacpY]T£. 

Cf.  also  II  Cor.  5  ;  10. 


BARNABAS 

(131-160  Harnack) 

A* 

b 

(1)  Bar.  IV,  11  f. 

[j,s>.£-w[j!.sv  TOV  cp6[3ov  TOO  (:!)£oD  . . . 
(12)  6  Kuptoi;  a7:poo-to7CO>.T^[j.7CTO)? 
XpiVsT  TOV  x6(7^ov  .  sxacTO? 
xaO'w?  £7coiv]0'£v  xo[Jit£T'irai .  eocv  Y] 
ayai^-oc,  y)  BixaiocyvYj  auTOu  xpo- 
T^yrjaETai  auToti,  £av  v]  xovYjpoc,  6 

[XItO'O?      TTj:;      XOVY]pia^      £[J.7:p0(7&'£V 

auToO. 

Dr.  Bartlet  (N.  T.  in  Apost.  Fathers)  thinks  this  affords  no  argu- 
ment for  Hterary  dependence,  either  on  II  Corinthians  or  I  Peter, 
"  though  the  hkenesses  are  striking  in  both  cases."  It  is  significant 
however  that  dcTrpoo'coTCoXTijj.T^TO)?,  which  is  pecuhar  to  our  Epistle,  is 
used  just  in  the  same  connection  as  in  I  Peter.  The  "  sav  clauses  " 
on  the  other  hand  appear  to  be  developed  from  "  £it£  ayat>6v,  £ite 
xaxov  "  of  II  Cor.  5  ;  10.  Since  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  implies  all  that  is 
included  in  the  clauses,  just  alluded  to,  the  probabilities  are  yet 
in  favor  of  our  Epistle.  It  is  also  important  to  note  the  employ- 
ment in  verse  11  of  vao?  'ziXzioc  tw  Bew  which  corresponds  to  oTxo? 
7cv£U[xai:ix6r  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  5.  Reference  to  "  the  last  days"  in  verse  9 
is  also  suggestive  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  5,  20. 

(2)  Bar.  V,  5,  6,  7 

TTWC    OOV    67r£[J.£I,V£V    UTCO    yt^^OC,     OCV- 

S-pw^tov    -a8>£Tv ;    [xdb'szt.      6.  ol 

7rpOCpY]Tai,     (XTC     aUTOS     SjrOVTE?     TTjV 

y^apiv,  £1?  auTov  £7rpocprjT£tJcrav . 
auTo?  b£  I'va  xaT.ipyTjcrf]  tov  b-a- 
vaTOv  xoi  TYjv  sx  v£xpwv  avacTTa- 
(7iv  B£ur,,  OTi  £v  capxi  zbzi  ccoto-^ 
cpavEpcoO^TjVat,  67i£[j.£tv£v.  7.  tva 
xai   ToT?  TraTpao'iv   t7]v   sroa^'yEXiv 

(XTCoBcO. 

Dr.  Bartlet  rightly  sees  a  twofold  parallelism  here  with  our— 
Epistle  ;  "  (1)  prophecy  foreshadows  Christ's  passion  and  its  sequel, 
and  (2)  this  is  due  to  grace  proceeding  from  himself."  Attention 
should  have  been  called  also  to  the  close  parallel  in  the  clause  im- 


I  Pt.  1 ;  10 

TZZpX    fj?     TOTYjpiaC    I'^E^YjTTjTaV    V.0C1 
£^Y]p£UVYia-av    IZpryfTi-OCl    ol    XEpl    TTj^ 

sic,  b\Koic,  yjkpi'coQ  xpocp'/jTEUcavTE?  • 

(11)     £p£UVWVT£5     £??     TlVa    Y]    TCOTOV 

xaipov  ^br^\oo  to  sv  auToT^  ITvEij- 

[XV.     Xpi<7T0ti,    7:pO[XapTL(p6[J-£VOV    TX 

£1$  XpiiTTOv  7:a9T,[j.aTa,    xai  Tac- 
[j.£Ta  TatJToc  Bo^a?. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  385 

mediately  following  Mr.  Bartlet's  reference.  See  just  below.  Bigg 
contends  that  Barnabas  used  I  Peter  here.     See  Com.  p.  108. 

(3)  Bar.  V,  7  I  Pt.  2  ;  9 

ETOtjj.a^cov  sTTiBsr^Y).  i£paT£U[j.a,    eO-voc    ayiov.    'J.qcoc  si; 

X£pt-oir,a-iv. 

Following  the  preceding  parallel  this  striking  similarity  is  very 
significant. 

(4)  Bar.  V,  13  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 

auTTo;  By)  sO-sXYiasv  o3to)  T^aO-sTv .  oq  -zac,  aj^ocpxiixq  yi[j.cov  atj-o;  icvr,- 
sBst  yap  tva  liii  ^u>>ov  -aO-r,.  vey/vsv  sv  tw  o'cojj.ocTt,  auTOu  e-i  to 

This  reference  shows  closer  kindship  to  our  Epistle  than  to  any 
other  passage  of  scripture.  Gal.  3  ;  13  is  the  next  closest  parallel 
in  the  N.  T.,  but  clearly  "  Barnabas  "  is  not  following  it  at  this 
point. 

c 

(5)  Bar.  I,  6  I  Pt.  1  ;  9 

(^coY)?  zk-Kii;,  ap/Y]  xai  ~iXoc,  t^ittsco;      ko[j.i^6{j.£voi  ~b  ~zkoc,  ty]c  t^cg-tsojc 

Yi[J.WV  6[J.WV 

This  similarity  is  probably  due  to  common  currency.  Cf.  the 
parallel  usage  immediately  following  i.  e.  BixaioativY),  xpiirsco;  ^f//i 
xai  TsAoc.  It  is  to  be  noted  however  that  reference  is  made  to  the 
prophets  in  the  contexts  following  the  citations.  Cf.  I.  7  with 
I  Pt.  1  ;  10. 

Bar.  V,  1  I   Pt.  1  ;  2 

tva  T^  acpscTS!,  tcov  a[j-apTi,o)v  ay-  sv  acpiao-^j.w  IIvs'jij.aTo;,  dc,  b~oc- 
vt,'78'W[j.sv,  6  scTtv  sv  Tco  5ci[j.aTi  >coy;v  xai  pavTiTjj.ov  6ci[j.y.zoc,  'ItjTOo 
ToU  pavTi(7[j.a-o?  autrou  Xpicrxotj. 

Cf.  1;  19,  Heb.  12;  24,  13;  12. 

Were  we  to  follow  C  and  the  Lat.  of  Barnabas  (i.  e.  sv  tco  pscv- 
Tii7[j.aTt  auTOu  ToO  al'[j.aTOi;.,  Lat.  sparsione  sanguinis  illius)  ;  we  should 
have  here  a  closer  parallel  with  I  Peter  than  with  Hebrews,  but 
as  Professor  Bartlet  says  "  all  depends  on  the  reading  adopted  ;  and 
as  N  is  as  likely  to  be  right  as  C  and  a  version,  we  must  leave  the 
phrase  out  of  account."  The  similar  use  however  made  of  the 
"  suffering  servant  "  of  Isaiah  is  in  favor  of  dependence  on  I  Peter. 
Cf.  V,  2  with  I  Pt.  1  ;  19,  2  ;  21f.,  3  ;  18,  4  ;  1. 


386  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(7)  Bar.  V,  5  I  Pt.  2 ;  21 

6  Kupio?  67C£[j.£ivev  TvaQ'sTv  Tcspi  'zr\c,      Xptairoi;  sTrab'Sv  UTcep  Yj[j.o>v.    4  ;  1 

Barnabas  is  quite  suggestive  of  I  Peter  at  this  point. 

(8)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 

The  context  (wv  xavTO?  toO  x6(7[j.ou  Kuptoi;,  d>  £T7:£v  6  Heo?)  con- 
necting this  parallel  with  the  one  just  cited  is  in  favor  of  consider- 
ing this  verbatim  agreement  to  be  merely  accidental,  yet  it  occurs 
in  significant  connections  in  both  books. 

(9)  Bar.  VI,  2     (Isa.  28;   16  b)  I  Pt.  2 ;  6 

'IBou  £[j.pa>,o)  £ic  ~y.  Q'£^.£>.ia  Hiwv      iBou,   -i\^r^\)x  h  Zicov  7i0-ov  aypo- 

\ib-Oy     7C0UT£>>Tj,       IxXeXXOV,      CXXpO-         yWVtaToV,    IxIoXTOV,    £VTtIJ.OV. 

YwvtaTov,  £VTi[j.ov 

Quoted  from  the  LXX,  but  probably  suggested  by  I  Peter  as 
will  be  seen  by  the  following  parallels. 

(10)  Bar.  VI,  3  Isa.  28;  16  b  I  Pt.  2 ;  6 

6?     lljziGZl     £X'     a'JTOV         6  7:iCrT£!JC0V    O'J   [J.Y]  XaT-         6     7Cl0-T£tJ0)V     £7:'     aUTfi) 

^T^CETat  SIC  -6v  alcova      aic/uvO-Tj  on  [j.y;  xaTaiT/uvO-Y). 

Since  "Barnabas"  purports  to  be  quoting  from  "the  prophet," 
the  passage  is  a  good  commentary  on  his  method  of  quoting.  That 
he  is  not  following  the  original  is  obvious  from  the  text  itself. 
(ti'Tl^  n't  'j"'^^''^~)-  'E}v7:i^c<)  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  ttittsow  as 
in  I  Pt.  3  ;  5,  IXTriuOuo-at  Itu  tov  Heov.  This  usage  is  rare  in  the 
N.  T.  Paul  may  parallel  it  in  Rom.  15  ;  12  and  Phil.  2  ;  19,  yet 
in  the  latter  case  it  refers  to  desire  mingled  with  trust.  Other 
probable  examples  are  I  Tim.  4  ;  10,  5  ;  5.  It  seems  on  the  whole 
altogether  likely  that  our  "  Epistle  of  Hope  "  may  have  influenced 
"Barnabas"  to  employ  unconsciously  sXtti^w  for  Tiw—'jo). 

(11)  Bar.  VI,  4  I  Pt.  2  ;  7b 

XiB-ov  6v  a^TEBoxifxao-av  oi  olyi.oho-      Xib-oc,    ov    ot  oixoBo[j.OLivT£r,    r/j^oQ 
[j.ouvT£c,    oOtoc    Iysvt^&Tj    sic,   X£'^-      £Y£vr,Q^  zlc,  x£(pa>.Y;v  ywvta;. 
a7.Y]v  ywvia?. 

There  is  nothing  here  but  the  context  by  which  to  determine 
whether  "  Barnabas  is  quoting"  Ps.  118  ;  22  independently  or  at 
the  suggestion  of  our  Epistle.     If  he  is  following  Rom.  8  ;  33  it 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  387 

is  probably  by  way  of  I  Peter,  since  the  wording,  order  and  context 
of  the  latter  is  more  in  accord  with  this  Epistle  at  this  point. 

When  taken  alone  the  quotations  taken  from  Chap.  VI  mean 
but  little,  but  since  they  occur  in  the  same  context  in  the  same 
order  and  are  connected  with  a  variation  suggestive  of  Petrine 
influence,  dependence  is  highly  probable.  Among  the  infinite 
number  of  possible  combinations  the  above  could  be  a  mere  coin- 
cidence, but  exceedingly  improbable. 

It  may  also  be  said  in  this  connection  that  Chap.  VI  lays  stress 
upon  some  Petrine  ideas  which  are  worthy  of  note,  e.  g.  "  hope  " 
V.  3,  yib-oc,  for  Christ,  1—4,  "recreation"  11,  14,  corresponding  to 
I  Pt.  1  ;  3,  23,  and  the  suffering  of  Christ. 


(12)  Bar.  I,  6  I  Pt.  5;  1 

MC,  zlc  ti  'jiJLwv  Bstico  o71yu  (7'jv7:pscr[3uT£po?  12,  Bi'  bXv(0)y 

This  parallel  of  Monnier's  need  not  detain  us. 


(13)  Bar.  XVI,  10  I  Pt.  2 ;  5 

zv£U[j.aTa6c  voco?  oTxoc  7:v£'j[j.aTr/.6? 

We  have  here  no  clear  evidence  either  for  or  against  acquaintance 
with  our  Epistle.  Yet  the  reference  to  "  temple  building  "  and 
"new  creation  in  v.  8  may  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  question. 


Conclusion. 

It  has  been  seen  that  Chapter  V  seems  to  be  thoroughly  imbued 
with  Petrine  thought  and  expressions.  The  same  use  made  of  Isa.  53 
in  regard  to  Christ,  and  the  close  and  quite  continuous  sequence 
of  Petrine  ideas  make  it  highly  probable  that  "  Barnabas  "  here 
depends  upon  I  Pt.  1  and  2.  The  sequence  and  the  variations  of 
the  references  in  Chap.  VI  also  add  weight  to  the  above  obser- 
vation. 

Hesitation  and  consideration  should  characterise  any  statement 
which  is  adverse  to  the  opinion  of  great  scholars,  yet  on  the  basis 
of  the  combined  evidence  of  Chapters  IV— VI,  it  seems  necessary 
to  conclude  that  "  Barnabas  "  knew  and  used  our  Epistle. 


388 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


<1)        Vision  III,  xi,  3 

TOCC    [J.£pi[J.Va5     £70,    TOV 

Kuplov 


SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

(Written  cir.  140) 

B 

b 
I  Pt.  5 ;  7  a 

xa(7av  -TYiv  [j.Epi[j.vav 
6[j.5)v  £7ci,picjjavT£(;  etc 
auTOv  [ttov  0£6v] 


Ps.  54;  23  a 

£7C!,pi'j>0V  £TCl  KuptOV  TYIV 

[jipijjLvav  crou 


I  Pt.  5 ;  7  b 

OTi   auTw    [;.£X£t 
6[j.wv 


Ps.  54;   23  b 


(2)  Vis.  IV,  ii,  4 

iHcpuys?  •  •  •  '^'^^  '^v      OTi   auTw    [;.£A£t    7C£pl 
[X£piiJ.vav    cou   Itu  TOV      6[J.WV  c|j£t 

0£6v  EXEpKJja?  .  .  . 
(5)  £7rtpi'-|>aT£  TtX?  pi£p- 

i^vai;  6[j.5iv  iiz\  tov 
Kupiov,  xai  auTo?  xaT- 
opQ-oio-Et   odi-XOLC,. 

Principal  Drummond  has  pointed  out  these  parallels.  (N.  T.  in 
Apost.  Fathers.)  He  thinks  this  quotation  is  taken  independently 
from  Ps.  54.  Bishop  Lightfoot  is  undecided  between  the  Psalm 
and  our  Epistle.  Perhaps  Drummond  disposes  of  the  comparison 
too  readily.  The  fact  that  the  huge  beast,  used  as  a  type  of  dire- 
ful tribulation,  is  given  in  connection  with  the  echo  of  I  Pt.  5  ;  7, 
makes  it  very  probable  that  Hermas  had  in  mind  also  I  Pt.  5;  8  b. 


(3)         Sim.  IX,  xiv,  6 

o5>t   Ixata/^uvovT-at  to 
ovo[j.a  atJToti  cpopETv. 
xxi,  3. 

OTav  8^)a'j»tv  axoycrcoG"!, 
...  TO  6vo[xa  iizcaa- 
•/JJVOyZXl  TOU  Kuplou 
auTwv.  xxviii,  5,  6. 

01      7;aC7/^OVT£?       £V£yw£V 

ToO  dv6p.aT0?  'bocaZ^zi'/ 

0(p£l>«£T£  TOV  BeOV,  OTl 

6  Szbc  hof,  toOto  to 
ovojjia  [3a(JTa^7]T£  .  .  . 

ZETCOvQ-aTE     £V£X£V    TO!J 

ov6[xaT05  Kuptou 


I  Pt.  4  ;    14-16 

£1    dv£tBt^£0"S'£    EV    b'^O- 
^.aTlXpi'TTOU   .  .  .  T.T.'j- 

yi~(.'>  .  .  .  tl  c<)c,  Xpia- 
Ttavo?  liA]  aicyuvEO'Q'O), 


Poly.  Vin,  2 
£av  TcdcT/oj^Ev  Bta  to 

ovop.a  auToO,  Bo^a^co- 
[j,£v  auTOv  .  toOtov  yap 
Yj[jlv   TOV   67:oYpajj.[JL6v 


Bo^a^ETO)  Be  tov  ©eov      eQ'Yjxe  Bi'  lauToO. 
£v  TO)  dvo[j.aTi  TOUTco.      Mk.8;  38,  Lk.  9;26. 


0);    yap    av    z~7.i(yyw- 
Cf.  Acts  5;  41. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  389 

Sim.  VIII,  vi,  4 

s7:a!,'7y(L»vO'svT£c    TO    ovo[j.a    Kupiou 

TO     £7CIX>.Y]S>£V    £7;     aUTOUC 

Again  we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Drummcjnd  for  this  careful  analy- 
sis, as  well  as  for  his  comment  upon  the  same.  He  thinks  there 
is  here  a  probable  reminiscence  of  I  Peter,  which  inference  is  con- 
firmed from  the  parallel  from  Polycarp,  for  the  latter  has  just  quoted 
I  Peter,  and  that  he  still  has  the  Epistle  in  mind  is  indicated  by  the 
last  clause.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  21.  Bigg  only  calls  attention  to  the  par- 
allel between  Sim.  IX,  xxviii,  5  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  15.  Lightfoot  and 
Crombie  fail  to  record  any  of  these  parallels  just  given.  Though 
a  few  accidental  catch  words  as  Tuaa/co,  Ixaicr/yvovTat,  £V£X£v  toj 
dv6[j.aT0i;,  etc.  may  but  suggest  our  Epistle,  the  general  tenor  of  the 
passage,  especially  ch.  28,  in  connection  with  the  verbal  likeness, 
and  the  reference  in  Polycarp,  all  combine  to  make  a  strong  case 
for  literary  dependence. 


c 

(4)  Vis.  Ill,  iii,  5  I  Pt.  2  ;  5 

y;   ^coy]    u[j.ajv   Bta    uSaTO^    zGOib-r,      sv  Yjijipaic  Nw£,  xaTaT/.s'ja^ojj.Evr,? 
y.ai  (7coQ'-/;'j£Tai  xijjWToij,  elc,  r^v  h7h(0^  •  •  •  StsTtoS-Y,- 

aav  Bi  uBaTO?  . . .  gmZ^i  paTiTiT^-a. 

Drummond  thinks  the  idea  of  salvation  through  water  springs 
too  readily  from  the  practice  of  baptism  to  justify  one  in  claiming 
literary  dependence.  The  verbal  similarity  however  is  worthy  of 
note. 

(5)  Sim.  IX,  xxix,  1,  3  I  Pt.  2  ;  1,  2  Mt.  18  ;  3 

CO?   vYjTcia   ppl'prj   zlnL  a7:o!j-£[j.£vot  o5t,  7:^(7ccv  yi^r^<7b'Z  ioc,  Ta  -aiBia. 

0T5  ouB£[j.ia /.ay.ta  ava-  xaxiav  .   .  .  w?  apTi-  Cf.  I  Cor.  3  ;    1,  and 

|3aiv£t,  i%\  T'rjv  xapBiav  ^iy'^rfzcf.  [3p£cpY]  14  ;  20. 
.  .  .  ocoi  o5v  .  .  . 

In  I  Pt.  2  ;  1  and  I  Cor.  14  ;  20  it  is  the  blamelessness  of  the  babe 
which  is  considered,  where-as  in  I  Cor.  3  ;  1  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  2  its  diet. 
Sim.  IX,  xxix  is  more  likely  to  have  been  suggested  by  1  Pt.  than 
by  I  Cor. 

(6,  Hand.  VIII,  10 

Bigg  caUs  attention  to  a  list  of  "  Petrine  words  close  together" 
here  i.  e.  cpiX6'^£voc,  r^tyj/ioc,  aB£}/-p6Tr,s  and  aya8-o-oiYj(n;  —  (ayaO-o- 


390  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

xoua).  The  first  is  found  not  only  in  I  Pt.  4  ;  9  but  also  in  I  Tim.  3  ; 
2  and  Tit.  1  ;  8.  The  second  occurs  in  I  Pt.  3 ;  4,  and  in 
I  Tim.  2  ;  2,  while  Yjcruxta  is  found  in  Acts  22  ;  2,  II  Thes.  3  ;  12 
and  I  Tim.  2  ;  11,  12.  The  third  is  peculiar  to  I  Peter,  being 
found  only  in  2  ;  17  and  5  ;  9.  The  exact  form  of  the  last  is  not 
found  in  the  N.  T.,  but  the  allied  form  ayaS-OTCoto?  is  only  in  I  Pt.  2  ; 
14.  The  verbal  form  ayaS'OTwOtsco  is  common  in  the  N.  T. 
Cf.  Mk.  3  ;  4,  Lk.  6;  9,  33,  35,  Acts  14;  17,  and  III  Jn.  11.  It 
is  indeed  a  favorite  word  of  our  author.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  15,  20, 
3;  6,  17. 

d 

(7)  Vis.  Ill,  V,  1  I  Pt.  2  ;   5 

oixoBo[j.r;V  7rv£U[j.aTtxoc  .   .   . 

This  is  indeed  suggestive  of  our  Epistle,  especially  as  a  develop- 
ment of  the  figure.  The  figure  however,  is  too  common  to  guarantee 
any  degree  of  certainty  for  dependence. 

(8)  Vis.  IV,  iii,  4  I  Pt.  1  ;   7 

tO(77t£p  yap  TO  /puatOV  "toXllXCcttZCil  TO  BoXipOV  6[;.WV  TT^;  7:1'7T£0)?  izo- 
BlOC     TOD     TT'jpOC     .     .     .     0'JT(.)$     Xai         }.UTl[J.6T£pOV     )(pU(7tOU     TO^i     V.-oXXu- 

u[X£T?  Boxt[j.au£'7Q'£  [jivou  Bia  Tiupoc  Bs  Boxt[j.a'^0[j.£VOU. 

Drummond  can  see  no  connection  here  with  our  Epistle.  Bishop 
Lightfoot  is  not  sure.  When  taken  alone  we  cannot  lay  any  weight 
on  this  parallel,  though  it  is  suggestive. 

^9)       Sim.  IX,  xii,  2.  3  I  Pt.  1  ;  20  Heb.  1  ;  2 

6    ^-£V     "JIOC     TOJ    0£OLi         /piTToU       ZpOtyvOiGj^.Z-        £~'    ET/aTO'J    Toiv    f,[J-£- 

■iKxa-f^c  TTjC  XTio'ofoc  au-      vou  [j.£v  Tzpo  xaTOCjjo^vTj?      poiv.       I  Jn.  3  ;  5. 
TOtJ  TZpoyZ^ZG-ZpOC  l<y-       Y.6(7[X00     cpav£po)^£VTO(;       £X£'rvoc  £'^aV£pO>8'Yl 
Tiv  .   .   .  £7w'  £cr/aTO)v      Be    It;    zayjxro'j    Toiv  Col.  1  ;  15. 

Toiv    Yj[J.£po}V    TTj?    G'-JV-        /pOVWV.  TTpcOTOTOXOC  "OCTrj^  XTl- 

T£}.£ia?    cpavspoc    iyf-  'j£fo$. 

V£TO 

These  parallels,  borrowed  from  Drummond,  show  close  similarity 
in  thought  and  phraseology.  Yet  stress  cannot  be  placed  on 
the  likenesses,  inasmuch  as  the  same  thought  and  forms  of  expression 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  391 

are  to  be  found  elsewhere,  also  that  the  context  does  not  refer  to 
our  Epistle.  Mr.  Crombie  (Antcnicene  Fathers  II,  47)  sees  here 
a  reference  to  I  Peter,  but  Bishop  Lightfoot  fails  to  record  it. 

(10)  Sim.  IX,  xvi,  5  I  Pfc.  4  ;   6 

v.v.\oi  ol  /fr]f'JiavTrsi;  to  ovo[j.a  toO  xpivovTi   i^wvTa?    xai   vsxpo'jc  '  £?? 

uiou    Tou    0£oO,     xotjxYiO'svTs?    Iv  TouTO  yap  xai  vcxpoTc  s!jr,yYe>.i'70'r, 

BuvajjLS!,   xai   TtiTTst   tou    uioti    toj  I'va  xpiQ^wo't  [j.ev   xa^a   av0-po)7:oy? 

©sou  Ixvipu'^av  xal  toT<;  Trpoxsxoi-  o-apxi  ^wo-i  Bs  xa^a  O'sov  7:vc'J[xaTi. 
{XYi[X£voic,  xoci  a'jTOi  eBwxav  auToT? 
TYjv  (jcppayTSa  tou  XYjp'Jyjj.aToc 

Bigg  thinks  Hermas  here  is  explaining  I  Pt.  4  ;  6,  and  bases  his 
argument  largely  on  the  occurrence  of  the  "  Petrine  word  ^o)0- 
TcoisTv  "  just  before  the  reference  cited.  This  is  indeed  suggestive, 
yet  a  dubious  argument  since  the  "  Petrine  word  "  is  really  a  Pau- 
line word.  It  occurs  but  once  in  our  Epistle  (3;  18),  but  Paul 
uses  it  seven  or  eight  times.  Cf.  Rom.  4;  17,  8;  11,  I  Cor.  15  ; 
22,  36,  45,  II  Cor.  3;  6,  Gal.  3  ;  21.  See  also  I  Tim.  6  ;  13,  Jn.  5 ; 
21  a,  and  b,  6  ,  63.  The  thought  of  the  passage  is  close  to  that 
of  I  Peter,  yet  our  Epistle  no  where  speaks  of  the  a;:6(7To}.ot  xai 
^iBa'7xa}.oi  preaching  to  the  dead.  Just  above  in  I  Pt.  3;  19  our 
author  has  told  of  Christ  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  Pos- 
sibly this  may  refer  to  I  Peter,  but  the  "  harrowing  of  hell  " 
is  a  mythological  loan  of  early  Christianity  not  confined  to  our 
Epistle.  Drummond,  Crombie  and  Lightfoot  fail  to  record  this  as 
a  parallel. 

On  the  cumulative  evidence  of  all  the  foregoing  parallels  it  would 
seem  that  we  are  justified  in  claiming  a  higher  degree  of  probable 
dependence  of  Hermas  on  our  Epistle  than  Drummond,  or  even 
Monnier,  who  says,  after  pointing  out  that  Westcott,  Gebhardt 
and  Harnack  see  striking  resemblances,  that  :  "  On  nc  peut  en  dire 
autant  de  I'ecrit  de  Pierre;  mais  il  est  fort  possible  pourtant 
qu'  Hermas  le  connaisse." 


392  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

DIDACHE 

(120  or  later) 

D 

d 

(1)  Did.  I,  3  I  Pt.  2 ;  19 

7;ota  yap  /apt?  eav  .  .  .  touto   yap  /apt?  si  .  ,  . 

Though  the  phrase  is  similar  the  passage  does  not  deserve  serious 
attention. 

(2)  Did.  I,  4  I  Pt.  2;  11 

ocKzyou  Tcov  crapxixwv   xai  (j(o[j.a-      axs/saS^ai  tcov  aapxixoiv  sTutO-upwv 
TWtwv  S7:t8>upwv 

Professor  Lake  (N.T.  in  A.F.)  thinks  the  connection,  if  any, 
comes  through  a  later  gloss  of  o-apxixwv  from  our  Epistle,  and  as 
evidence  that  the  tautologous  form  aapxixSv  xai  croifj-a-irixcov  was 
not  original,  cites  IV  Mace.  1 ;  32,  twv  Bs  stciO-u^iwv  od  [jiv  dui 
diu/ixai  cd  Vz  aw^.a^txai.  This  argument  however  is  based  on  an 
assumption  that  has  less  in  its  favor  than  the  conjecture  that  it 
is  an  actual  quotation.  The  context  has  nothing  to  suggest 
I  Peter  but  this  was  to  be  expected  inasmuch  as  the  whole  docu- 
ment is  a  mosaic  of  scriptural  references  taken  almost  at  random. 
The  evidence  either  way  is  too  slight  to  warrant  one  recognizing 
more  than  a  possible  connection. 

(3)  Did.  n,  6  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 

OTcspi^cpavo?  OTOpYjcpavoi? 

This  parallel,  pointed  out  by  Monnier,  need  not  detain  us,  since 
the  word  is  not  peculiar  to  I  Peter,  nor  is  the  context  as  suggestive 
of  it  as  of  "  James." 

(4)  Did.  IV,  11  I  Pt.  2;  18 

6uLeTi;   Be    ol  Boti)>ot   •jxoTaYYjO'saS-e      ol  oixsTai,  u7COTa(7<76[xevot  ev  TiavTt 
ToT?  xupioi?  6p.wv  .  .  .  Iv  cpopw  (popw 

In  addition  to  this  very  similar  phrasing,  the  context  also  has 
ideas  which  suggest  our  Epistle.  Compare  ur.b  vsotyitoc  BiBa^st?  tov 
(p6(3ov  tol5  ©sou,  (v.  9,)  with  such  passages  as  I  Pt.  5  ;  5,  2  ;  17. 
Compare  also  ou  yccp  sp/STai  xara  TipoctoTcov  xaXscai  (v.  10)  with 
aTrpoG-ojTuoATjTTTco?  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  and  the  Petrine  doctrine  of  election. 
The  combination  of  these  inferences  makes  dependence  somewhat 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  393 

probable,    yet   there  is  very  little  here  which  cannot  be  paralleled 
in  the  Pauline  Literature.     Cf.  Eph.  6  ;  5. 

(5)  Did.  XVI,  4  I  Pt.  4;  3 

Merely  accidental. 

(6)  Did.  XVI,  5  I  Pt.  4 ;  12 
dc,  TY]v  7rupcoo-£v  T^i;  Boxi[;.a(7ta5         T^ypo'xjsi  7:p6;  xeipao^j-ov 

I  Pfc.  1  ;  7 
Bta  Tiupoc  Bs  Boxi[j.a'Co[jL£VOv 

This  figure  is  too  common  to  betray  dependence. 

The  foregoing  study  justifies  us  in  claiming  for  the  Didache  no 
more  than  a  very  doubtful  connection  with  I  Peter. 

Harnack,  with  Lightfoot  and  others,  sees  no  connection  here 
with  our  Epistle,  but  notes  certain  resemblances  to  Jude  and  II  Peter. 
(See  Art.  in  Schaff.  Herzog  Relig.  Enc.)  The  Oxford  committee 
notes  but  one  parallel. 

POLYCAEP 
Cir.  115 

A* 

a* 

(1)  Poly.  I,  3  ,  I  Pt.  1;  8 

zlc,  ov  c/ux  iBovTSi;  TutaTSUSTS  /ocpa      6v    oux    iBovire?    ocyaTcaTs,    tic,    6v 
av£x>.aXrjTco  xat,  B£Bo^aa[X£vv]  apTi    ij.y]    6pcovT£c    iziG-fjov-zc,    Vz 

ayaTvXiacrGs  /apa  av£x7.aXrjTw  xal 

B£Bo^a(7[jivYi 

This  reference  clearly  depends  upon  I  Peter. 

(2)  Pol.  II,  1  •  I  Pt.  1 ;  21 

mcrT£UffavT£?  zlc,  tov  eyEtpav-ra  tov  iouc,  BV    a^ToU   tckj-ou?   £1?   ©eov 

Kupiov    YifJLwv  'lYjcrotiv   XpicTov   Ix  TOV    lysipavToc    au-6v    Ix    v£xpcov 

vExpwv  xai  Bovxa  au-fii  Botav  xai  B6'£av  auTw  Bovra 

The  dependence  here  is  too  obvious  to  require  any  comment. 

(3)  Pol.  VIII,  1  I  Pt.  2 ;  24 

6?  avYjvsyxsv   yi[xwv   toc?   a^-apxia?      oc,     Ta?     a^xapTiac     Tj^xcov     a^TO? 
Tco  iSto)  (70)[j.aTt  Im  to  tuVjv,  avYiv£yx£v    £v    tw    (70)p,aTi    a^ToO 

Itci  to  'i(ii)\Ov. 


394 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(4)  Ibid.  I  Pfc.  2 ;  22 


(5)  Ibid. 


I  Pt.  2  ;  21 

ETUaOsV    67CSp    6[J.0)V 


(6)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  2 ;  24 


(7)  Pol.  VIII,  2 

lav  7ca(7)r(o[j.£v  Bta  to  ovo[j.a  a'jTou 
Bo|a^w[j.£v  a!j~6v 


I  Pt.  4  ;    16 

£?  Bs  0)5  ypirtziocwq,  [xr,  ai<7j(uv£iT8^w, 
Bo^a^sTO)  Bs  Tov  ©eov  sv  tw 
dv6[j-aTi  TO'JTco 


(8)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  2;  21 

toOtov  yap  6[j.Tv  6~OYpa[j.[j.6v  £0-r,x£      0[j.Tv  07:o}aij.7:avo)v  'jTioyp^^lJ-JJ-ov 

These  parallels  in  Pol.  VIII  have  been  pointed  out  by  all  scholars. 
That  Polycarp  drew  in  \TII,  1  from  I  Pt.  2  ;  21—24,  seems  to  beyond 
all  doubt.  Though  he  has  not  followed  the  order  of  our  Epistle 
he  has  not  only  reproduced  its  thought  but  its  phraseology  ver- 
batim. 

The  first  reference  under  VI 11,  2  is  drawn  from  another  context 
but  clearly  echoes  I  Peter.  The  second  reference  returns  to  the 
context  drawn  from  in  VIII,  1.  Since  67uoYpa[j.[j.6v  occurs  no  where 
else  in  the  N.  T.,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  but  that  the  last 
parallel  presupposes  our  Epistle.  Mr.  Benecke  notices  that  in  the 
place  where  I  Peter  is  dependent  on  Isaiah,  Polycarp  seems  clearly 
to  be  dependent  on  I  Peter.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  22  with  Isa.  53  ;  9. 
Isaiah  employs  avopav  where  I  Peter  uses  a[j,ap-tav.  Other  diffe- 
rences occur,  but  Polycarp  gives  verbatim  the  form  found  in  our 
Epistle. 


(9)  Pol.  X,  2 

Omnes  vobis  invicem 
subjecti  estote,  con- 
versationem  vestram 
irreprehensiblem  hab- 
entes  in  gentibus  ut 
es  bonis  operibus 
vestris  et  vos  laudem 


I  Pt.  2  ;  12  (Vulg.) 
conversationem  ves- 
tram inter  Gentes 
habentes  bonam  ;  ut 
ines,  quod  detrectant 
de  vobis  tamquam 
demalefactoribus  vos 
considerantes,       glo- 


I  Pt.  2;  12 

TYjV    avaCTpOCpYlV     U[J,0)V 
6v  TTOT?  sO-VEO-lV  £/_OVT£? 

xalYjV,  tva  £v  &  xaira- 
XaXoOiTiv      6[j.o)v      (5)^ 

XaXOTTOtWV         £X        TO)V 

y.cckSi'j  Ipyojv  etcOtutsu- 
ovT£?    BoSa(roj<7iv    tw 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  395 

accipiatis    et    Domi-      rificent  Deum  in  die      Hew  Iv  r,ijipa  s-'-t/.o- 

nus     in    vobis     non      visitationis.  5 ;  5  Om-      ttt^c.    'jTzo-ixyr^-t  -octy, 

blasphemetur.  nes    autem    invicem,      avO-pomvYi  /-'iTsi  Bia 

(subditiestote.  5;  4).      tov  Ktiptov.    5;5-av- 

T£?  Be  a).lT,}.o',r  (O-o- 

TayviTs  5 ;  4). 

Benecke,  after  quoting  the  above,  states  :  "  the  second  clause  in 
the  passage  seems  to  be  a  certain  quotation  from  I  Pt."  Bishop 
Lightfoot  thinks  there  may  be  a  reference  in  the  first  part  of  the 
quotation  to  Eph.  5  ;  21.  It  is  significant  that  in  X.  1  the  word 
"  exemplar  "  occurs,  corresponding  to  the  67:oYpa[j.[j.ov  of  Jesus  in 
I  Pt.  2;  21,  in  close  conjunction  with  "  fraternitatis,"  which  likewise 
corresponds  to  another  word  peculiar  to  our  Epistle,  i.  e.  aB£Xo6rf,Ta 
of  I  Pt.  2  ;  17.  These  two  words,  it  is  noticed,  occur  in  I  Peter  in 
rather  close  contextual  connexion.  These  observations  make 
Benecke's  conclusion  all  the  more  certain,  that  Polycarp  here  shows 
dependence  upon  I  Peter. 

b 

(10)  Pol.  II,  1  I  Pt.  1  ;  13 

Bio  ava^co(ja[j.£voi,  -zy.:;  oacpya;  Boo-      Bio  avoc^wjocij.svoi  -ocq  oa'-p'ja?  zr^q 

Xtuacf.'zz  Tw  Gso)  £v  cpojjo)  >cal  ocIy]-      Biavoia?  O[j.tov 

i>£ia 

Although  this  citation  has  a  certain  affinity  with  Eph.  6  ,M4  the 
probabilities  are  that  the  Pauline  thought  reached  Polycarp  via  our 
Epistle.     The  context  seems  to  demand  such  a  conclusion. 

(11)  Pol.  II,  2  I  Pt.  3 ;  9 

[J.Y]  a7roBiB6vT£c  xaxov  avTi  xaxoo  \i.r^  aTToBiBovTEc  xaxov  avri  xaxoti 
■?;  XoiBopiav  avTi  }.otBopta?  ■?!  },oiBopiav  avTi  }.oiBopia; 

Benecke  thinks  this  verbatin  agreement  may  be  accounted  for,  as 
a  common  proverb  which  both  are  quoting.  This  however  is  rendered 
highly  improbable,  inasmuch  as  Polycarp  had  just  quoted  from 
I  Peter.  If  it  is  a  common  proverb,  in  all  probability  it  was  suggested 
by  our  Epistle. 

c 

(12)  Pol.  I,  3  1  Pt.  1 ;  12 

dc,  Y-v  T.oJ.Xbi  lizib-o[JM'y'y  zln-  £??  a  £~t&"j[j.o'j'7iv  ayyE^vOi  Tzocpcc- 
£}vO'£Tv  yjj'hM. 

Though  Lightfoot,  Bigg  and  others  fail  to  find  any  reference  here 
to  our  Epistle,  Benecke  is  correct  in  claiming  a  possible  connection 
on  the  basis  of  the  certain  quotation  just  preceding  it. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  27  Jandary,  1913. 


396  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(13)                         Pol.  V,  3  I  Pt.  2 ;  11 

"Kxkbv    yap    TO    avaxoTreaQ-at,    (Xtto  ot-iziytab-ai    twv    capxixoiv    ItoQ^u- 

Tcov  £xi,d"U[j.twv  £v    Tw    xocjJLto,  oTt  [xtwv    aiTivs?    (7TpaT£uovTai    xaTa 

Tiaaa  £m8'U[jia  xaxa  tou  7W£U[xaTos  i:^?  '1"^/% 

<7Tpa-£!j£Ta!,. 

This  is  probably  a  free  quotation  from  I  Peter,  yet  its  close  re- 
lationship with  such  passages  of  Paul  as  Gal.  5  ;  16,  17,  and  Rom. 
13  ;  14,  render  it  somewhat  doubtful. 

The  foregoing  study  in  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  seems  to  justify 
us,  without  further  comment,  though  numerous  other  minor  like- 
nesses might  be  pointed  out,  in  adopting  Monnier's  conclusion, 
"  L'epitre  de  Polycarpe  aux  PhiUppiens  contient  les  citations  les  plus 
expresses  et  les  plus  detaillees  de  l'epitre  de  Pierre,  mais  sans  le 
nommer  comme  I'auteur."  ("  La  Premiere  Epitre  De  L'Apotre 
Pierre  "  p.  307).  Eusebius  is  also  responsible  for  the  statement 
that  "  Polycarp  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  still  extant, 
has  made  use  of  certain  testimonies  taken  from  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter."  Though  Polycarp  never  mentions  the  name  of  Peter  in 
connection  with  the  quotations  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  he 
used  the  "  First  Epistle  "  that  bears  the  Apostle's  name. 


TESTAMENTA  XII  PATRIARCH  ARUM 

D 

Bigg,  in  basing  the  date  of  this  document  on  the  authority  of 
Sinker,  who  puts  it  in  the  latter  part  of  the  First  Century  or  the 
early  part  of  the  Second,  gives  it  a  voice  in  deciding  our  problem. 
But  if  Professor  Charles  is  right  in  dating  the  original  in  the  closing 
years  of  the  Second  Century  B.  C.^  there  can  be  but  little  value  in 
its  testimony,  since  the  date  of  the  Christian  interpolations  is  much 
more  indefinite  than  the  date  of  I  Peter  itself.  (Cf.  also  the  articles 
by  F.  C.  Conybeare  and  K.  Kohler  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia.)  The 
Parallels  between  the  two  books  may  be  due  either  to  dependence  by 
the  writer  of  I  Peter  on  the  earlier  Jewish  document  or  to  later  Christian 
interpolations  from  I  Peter.  At  all  events  this  book  complicates 
rather  than  helps  to  solve  our  problem. 

•  Greek  Version  of  the  "  Testaiueut  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  ",  p.  ix. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  397 

IGNATroS 
(Writing  Cir.  110-117) 

B 

b 

(1)  Mag.  VII  [,  2  I  Pt.   1;   10  f. 

£[X7ws6^.ai  6-0  -%c  /ot-^i^rjc  ((X'jTOu)      7:po9r^Tai    oi    Trspt    ty]?    zlc    -jij-a? 
(^)  yjx^i-zoc^  Tcpo'-pYjTeiJcravTs?  ....  sBr^- 

};ou  TO  sv  a'jToT?  7;v£Dp.a  XptaTOo 
Inspiration  of  the  prophets  by  the  preexistent  spirit  of  Christ  is 
not  a  common  idea  in  the  N.  T.,  though  it  occurs  in  Heb.  2  ;  11  —  13. 
10  ;  5—9.  Since  there  are  "  several  ideas  in  common  "  in  the  imme- 
diate contexts  of  the  above  passages,  (cf .  Lightfoot's  Apos.  Fathers, 
II,  125,)  dependence  on  our  Epistle  is  far  more  probable  than  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  thought  of  whose  context  is  quite  foreign 
to  the  thought  of  Ignatius  in  this  section. 


(2)  Eph.  V,  3  ''  I  Pt.  5;  5c 

•jTisprjCpavoic   6  %zbc   avTnraao-sTa!,      6  0eoc   uTreprz-pccvote   avTiraa-o-exat 

It  seems  impossible  to  determine  definitely  whether  the  author 
was  quoting  Prov.  3  ;  34  directly,  or  whether  he  was  influenced 
either  by  I  Peter  or  James  4  ;  6  or  Clement  of  Rome  (30  ;  2).  The 
order  is  neither  that  of  the  original  in  the  LXX,  not  that  of  any  of 
the  later  writers.  The  change  of  K-Jpio?  for  6  Osoc  shows  later  in- 
fluence. The  context  in  wich  the  quotation  occurs  both  in  Clement 
and  James  is  not  in  accord  with  the  context  in  Ignatius.  On  the 
other  hand  the  context  of  our  Epistle  is  quite  in  accord  with  that  of 
Ignatius,  who  gives  immediately  after  the  quotation  o-7:o!j8a<7(o[X£v 
ouv  [J/?]  avTiT-acrascQ-at  tw  £7;icrx67r(o,  corresponding  exactly  to  uttotoc- 
YTjTs  xp£(7Jju-£potc  of  I  Pt.  5 ;  5a.  The  context  preceding  the 
quotation  is  an  exhortation  to  humility,  quite  in  harmony  wdth 
I  Pt.  5  ;  5b.  If  there  be  literary  dependence,  therefore,  it  is 
probably  on  our  Epistle,  but  we  are  dealing  with  a  mere  "  winged 
word,"  a  memoniter  quotation.  The  value  of  the  datum  will  be 
largely   determined  by   the  number  of   other  instances  in  Ignatius. 

(3)  Eph.  IX,  1  I  Pt.  2;  5 

wc  ovire?   XiO-oi   vaou   7rporjTOi.[j.a<7-      ok  'ki^rji  ToivTs?  oJ/voBoij-sTtO-s  oTxo? 

JJ.SV01    tic,     0l)t0B0[JLY)V     HsoU    XaTpO?        ~V£L»[J.aTlXOC 

Both  the  thought  and  phraseology  are  very  suggestive  of  our 
Epistle.  Ignatius  shows  however  some  points  of  likeness  to  I  Cor.  3; 
16.     The  probabilities  seem  to  be  in  favor  of  I  Peter. 


398 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


I  Pt.  3  ;  19 

sv  6)  (7Wsu[j.aTi)  xoi  iroTi;  sv  cpuXaxYJ 
xv£U[j.aa!,v  TTopsuQ-si?  sxiqpu^Ev,  4 ;  6 


(4)  Mag.  IX,  3 

ob  xoi  61  Tcpocp^Tai  ^aO-vj-al  ovirs^ 

xpoasBoxcov.      xa\    Bia    toQ-o,    6v 
BixKwo?    av£[j.£vov,    Tiapwv     ■V]Y£ip£V 

aUTOUC    £X    V£XpWV 

The  idea  that  Jesus  descended  into  Hades,  (drawn  probably  from 
Eph.  4  ;  9,  which  is  developed  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  19,  and  4  ;  6,  into  the 
doctrine  that  Christ  preached  there  to  release  the  spirits  from  prison) 
receives  even  fuller  development  here.  This  idea  was  too  prevalent 
in  the  Second  Century  to  enable  us  to  be  certain  that  Ignatius  was 
depending  directly  upon  our  Epistle,  though  the  general  context 
seems  to  make  it  probable.  See  also  Mt.  27  ;  51-53,  Justin,  Dial.  72; 
Hermas,  Sim.  IX,  16  and  Clem,  of  Alex.  Strom.  II,  9. 


(5)  Mag.  VII  r,  2  I  Pt.  1  ;  11 

01  yap  0£i6Ta-oi   zpo'-pTj-rai    xa^a      £v      au-oT;     (TCpocpi^irai?)     -v£up.a 
XpiCT'^ov  Tr|(To3v  £^rj(7av.    Cf.  Phi-      XpiaToO 
lad.  V. 

All  depends  on  the  interpretation  of  "  xara  "  as  to  whether  this 
is  a  parallel  or  not. 

This  study  of  the  Ignation  Epistles  has  not  discovered  sufficient 
ground  for  asserting  literary  dependence  on  our  Epistle.  It  merely 
shows  the  prevalence  of  certain  ideas  which  are  more  likely  to  have 
been  suggested  by  it  than  by  any  other  writing  to  which  we  can 
definitely  point. 

CLEMENT  OF  ROME 

(95) 
A* 

b 
^1)  Clem.  Int.  I  Pt.  1  ;   I 

TOxpaTopo?  BeoO  Bta  Ty](7oO  Xpic- 

TTOtj)    7C>.Y]9>UvQ'£lYl 

Bishop  Lightfoot  observes  that  "/api,?  6[j.Tv  xai  £iprjVY]  is  the 
common  salutation  of  Paul,  excepting  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  With 
the  addition  tcT^yiO^uvO'EITj,  however,  it  occurs  only  in  the  two  Epist- 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  399 

les  of  Peter,  from  whom  probably  Clement  derived  the  form,  as 
the  First  Epistle  is  frequently  quoted  by  him. "  (Clem,  of  Rome 
I,  p.  647.)  Cf.  also  his  "Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul",  p.  8. 
Against  this  it  may  be  urged  that  Clement  is  here  borrowing  from 
Daniel  instead  of  from  I  Peter.  Dan.  (LXX)  3;  31  has  sipr^vY] 
6[jilv  %lrib'0-^b'zi-(].  See  also  Dan.  4;  34.  Dan.  11;  39  employs  the 
phrase  7cl'/]Q-uvsT  Bo^av.  ll}.-r]0'!jv(o  is  a  ver}^  common  word  in  the 
LXX.  It  is  rarely  employed  as  in  I  Peter  and  Clement,  but  is 
frequently  used  to  express  the  growth  of  evil.  Cf.  Ps.  118  (119); 
69,  Si.  47  ;  24,  Am.  4 ;  4,  Jl.  3  (4)  ;  13,  Is.  57  ;  9,  Jer.  5  ;  6,  37 
(30)  ;  14,  15,  etc.  It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  the  word  r.caxo- 
xpdcTcop  does  not  appear  in  Daniel.  The  word,  however,  is  common 
in  the  LXX,  especially  in  Amos,  where  it  is  used  no  less  than 
ten  times.  But  it  is  never  used  in  the  O.  T.  in  a  connection 
similar  to  the  above  usage  in  Clement  and  I  Peter.  Nor  is  xapi? 
employed  in  this  way  in  the  O.  T.  It  does  not  seem  necessary 
therefore  to  think  Clement  selected  words  from  different  O.  T. 
books  to  compose  this  clause  when  he  could  have  taken  the  major 
portion  of  the  expression  directly  from  I  Peter,  from  which  he 
apparently  drew  in  other  connections.  "  Jude"  has  a  very  simi- 
lar clause;  zXzoc,  upv  xai  sipvivYj  xai  aYaTrv)  TcT^vjO-uvO-eir,.  but  it  need 
not  detain  us  here  as  a  rival  of  1.  Pt.  1;  1.  On  the  whole  it 
seems  Lightfoot's  conclusion  is  well  grounded. 

There  is  a  further  likeness  in  the  salutation  of  Clement  in  the  word 
Tuapoixoijaa.  Though  £7ui,Brjp.oi?  is  used  in  I  Peter  instead,  the  idea 
is  the  same,  as  may  be  seen,  both  by  I  Pt.  2;  11  (where  -apoixou? 
and  TvapsTCiBYjij.ou?  are  coordinated)  and  by  Clement  himself.  Cf. 
salutation  for  xapouoOo-a  and  I,  2  for  .zap£7:tBYi[r^(7a;.  In  the  saluta- 
tion of  no  other  N.  T.  book  does  either  word,  or  a  word  expressing 
a  similar  idea  occur.  The  nearest  approach  is  in  Jas.  1  ;  1  {zcdc, 
BwBsxa  's^iAoiXq  TaTc  h  ty]  BiaaTOpa),  But  I  Pt.  1 ;  1  also  employs 
BiacrTTOpai;. 

Clement  uses  xT^yj-oT?  while  I  Peter  has  sxIsxtoTc.  The  former 
occurs  in  the  N.  T.  salutations  only  in  Romans,  I  Corinthians  and 
Jude,  while  the  latter  appears  only  in  Titus  and  our  Epistle. 
Though  I  Peter  nowhere  uses  the  form  yCkr^-oc,,  the  idea  is  the 
same.  Thayer  contrasts  these  words  (Lex.  in  loco),  but  evidently 
there  is  no  contrast  to  be  understood  here,  since  it  is  improbable 
that  Clement  would,  in  the  salutation,  upbraid  his  readers  as  "  those 
who  have  shown  themselves  unfitted  to  obtain  salvation".  Paul 
does  not  contrast  these  forms,  nor  indeed  is  there  a  contrast  here. 
(Th.   Lex.  xT^TiTO?,)   Then    if   Clement    shaped    his    salutation    after 


400  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

the  model  of  I  Peter,  as  Lightfoot  thinks,  the  change  of  form  would 
not  militate  against  it,  since  "  sxXsxxo?  is  indeed  a  rare  word  with 
Geeek  writers",  (cf.  Th.  Lex.  on  sxXsxto^)  and  he  would,  in  quoting 
from  memory,  naturally  employ  the  more  familiar  word  expressing 
the  same  idea.  He,  however,  uses  £x>.sxt6?  elsewhere,  which  will 
be  considered  later.     Cf.  1  ;  1. 

(2)  Clem.  lut.  I  Pt.  1 ;  2 

yiYta(7[j,£V0i(;  sv  8<£>.Yj[xaTt  ©sou  Bia  Iv  ayiao-jj-w  IIvsufj-aTO?  zlq  6-a- 
Tou  KupioO  Yi[j.o)v    Ir^GOo   XpicTOL)      xoYjv  xal  pavTiTfj-ov  at[j.aT05  'I'^icou 

XplOTOLi 

This  seems  to  express  the  thought  of  I  Peter  in  contracted  form. 
The  likeness  will  be  made  clearer  by  the  following  analysis. 

(1)  YiytaT^svoi?  (5:yia(7[x6) 

(2)  £v  O'slrijjLa-t  HsoD  xa^a  xpoyvtoo-tv  Szou 

(3)  Sta    -rov    Kuptov    y][j.o)v  'IyjToO      sic  67i:axoY]v  xai  pavTiaixov  ai'ixa-iroc 
XpicTou  'Iy](7oO  XpiaToO. 

The  forms  of  the  verb  ocyAZfo  are  found  in  the  salutations  of  but 
two  N.  T.  writings,  i.  e.,  I  Corinthians  and  Jude.     The  former  has 

Y)Yi.a'7|jivoi?  £v  XpicTTw  'It^toD 

while  the  latter  has, 

£»•  0-£w  r.ccrpl  Y]Yia«T[j,£voi$. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  close  parallel  between  the  sa- 
lutations of  Jude  and  I  Clement.  It  seems  there  is  more  probability 
of  connection  between  I  Clement  and  Jude  than  between  I  Clement 
and  I  Corinthians  at  this  point.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  many  of 
the  best  manuscripts  of  Jude  have  Y]Ya7:Yi[j.Evoi^  instead  of  YiY!.ao-[;.£vot?, 
as  in  I  Corinthians.  In  favor  of  the  former  Tregelles  cites  A.  B.  x. 
Vulg.,  Syr.,  Hcl.  Memph.  Theb.  Arm.  (AEth.)  Orig.  Ill,  607c,  etc. 
It  appears  therefore  that  I  Clement  was  very  probably  influenced 
here  by  I  Peter. 

(2)  'Ev  b'zXriiJMZi  (')trjo  is  a  very  different  form  from  that  used 
in  I  Peter,  but  the  thought  of  xa-ra  ;:p6Yvoj'7!,v  ©£oO  .  .  .  7:^z'j[j.rx.zoc, 
is  far  from  alien  to  that  of  Iv  b't\riij.rx.zi  (:)£ot».  Indeed  the  latter 
may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  former  in  contracted  form. 

(3)  Aia  Tou  KtjpCou  y][j.wv  TyjTou  Xpia-oO  may  be  a  general  form 
drawn  from  pavTicp-ov  aifxairoi;  'Ir,a"oO  XpiaToO,  in  which  case  Bia 
takes  the  place  of  pav-i(7[j.6v  atij.aTO?. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


401 


In  the  beginning  of  no  other  N.  T.  book  is  the  same  emphasis 
laid  on  "  election,"  with  the  single  exception  of  Ephesians,  and  there 
the  dependence  is  on  the  side  of  I  Peter.  Cf.  x}.r,ToTr  of  I  Clem. 
Int.  and  v/Ckzy-oXc,  of  I  Clem.  1  ;  1  with  sx}.£xtoTc  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  1 
and  xpoyvoxTtv  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  2.     Cf.  also   1  ;  3  ff . 

Though  some  of  the  above  "  likenesses  "  may  be  imaginary,  there 
seems  to  be,  on  the  whole,  a  good  basis  for  maintaining,  notwith- 
standing Professor  Carlyle's  adverse  conclusion  (X.  T.  in  Apos. 
Fathers  p.  57),  that  the  salutation  of  I  Clement  is  in  some  way 
dependent  upon  I  Peter. 

(3)  1  Clem.  22  ;  2—6  I  Pt.  3 ;  10—12 

ayaTiwv  rj[j.£pK?  iSsTv  ayaO-a?;  (3)  iSsTv    Yj[jipa?    ayaO-a?.      TwaoaccTO) 

Tiauo-ov  TTjV  yXoifj^av  lou  axo  xaxoj  tTjV    yAoio-G-av    auToti    axo    xaxoj 

xal  /si^^Tj  Toti  [j.Tj  'K'x\%'jy.i  BciAov  xal  /sO/rj  aoToEi    toO  [j.t,  XocLr^ny.'. 

(4)  £xx>.!,vov  a-0  xaxou  xai  xoiy)-  B6);ov,    (11)    sxxlivaTco     Bs     a~o 

(70V  ayaO'OV      (5)  Zrixr^iyoy  sipYjvYiV  xaxoS      xal      TuoiYjcraTO)      aya0-6v, 

xai  Buo'fov   a'jTTjV.      (6)  dcpO'a7^[j.oi  ^TiTYjaaTO)     eipi^vYiv     xal    Bto)^aTO) 

Kupiou  exi  BtxaiOL)?,  xai  co-^a  aO-  auTYjv.     (12)  oti  ocpO-alij-ol  KupioD 

ToO  r^poc  BsTjOT/  auTwv  xpoTr^-ov  Itzi    Bixaiou?    xai    w^a    auTOu    sir 

Be  Kupiou  £7ci  TTOtouvTa?  xaxa  ....  Bstjciv  au^wv,  TipocrwTrov  Bs  Kupio'j 

Cf.  Ps.  34  ;   13 — 17a.  lizi  ;:oioOv-:ac  xaxa 

We  are  certain  that  Clement  is  quoting  here  from  the  LXX,  not 
only  because  of  the  verbatim  agreement  but  also  because  he  quotes 
at  greater  length.  But  that  the  scripture  was  suggested  by  I  Peter 
(3  ;  10—12)  is  made  most  probable,  since  it  is  used  as  the  scriptural 
authority  for  the  lengthy  Petrine  exhortations  just  given  in  Chap.  21, 
precisely  as  it  is  employed  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  10—12  after  3  ;  1—9.  It  is 
especially  significant  that  the  quotation  is  followed  in  both  instances 
with  a  buoyant  expression  of  God's  providential  care  for  His  fol- 
lowers. Cf.  Clem.  22  ;  1  with  I  Pt.  3  ;  13.  This  sequence  can  hardly 
be  accidental. 


(4)  I  Clem.  49  :  5 

aya^'r]  xa>.!j;;T£i  tcT^y]- 
8"0r  a!J.a.CTto>v 


I  Pt.  4 ;  8 
ayavfi  xalu7;"i  TzLr- 
b-oc  oifxapTicov 


Jas. 


20 


0  sTViTTps'lia?  aij.ap- 
T0)16v  £x  izXarr^c  oSoD 
auToD  croWsi  '\>'jyry  Ix 
O-avaTOu  xai  xa}.U'i£i 
zXrb-rjC  aa.apTTicov 


Prov.  10;   12 
:cav'C"acBEToijc  [J-Tj  cpilovsixoDvTacxal'JTTTSioilia 

Light  foot,  Monnier  and  others  think  we  have  here  a  certain  quo- 
tation from  our  Epistle.     Professor  Carlyle,  however,  views  it  as  a 


402  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

mere  possibility.  Nor  can  he  justify  A.  Resch  (Agrapha  p.  248)  in 
his  conclusion  that  both  I  Peter  and  I  Clement  are  quoting  a  tradi- 
tional saying  of  our  Lord.  (N.  T.  in  A.  F.  p.  56—57.  Clement's 
mind  was  certainly  and  deeply  imbued  with  I  Cor.  13.  There  is, 
however,  no  record  that  Paul  ever  alluded  to  this  passage  in  Pro- 
verbs. The  fact  that  this  exact  form  of  the  quotation  is  to  be  found 
nowhere  earlier  than  I  Peter  is  indeed  significant.  Though  Jas. 
5  ;  20  and  Prov.  10  ;  12  are  similar,  it  seems  evident  that  if  there 
is  dependence  anywhere  it  is  on  our  Epistle.  It  is  also  to  be  noted 
that  Clem.  49  ;  6  is  quite  suggestive  of  I  Peter.  This  parallel  affords 
no  conclusive  proof  that  Clement  used  I  Peter,  but  in  view  of  the 
other  parallels  and  quotations  common  to  both  Epistles,  we  are 
justified  in  regarding  this  verbatim  agreement  as  very  important. 

(5)  I  Clem.  59  ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

Bi'  o5  sxaT^scrsv  Yi[J-a?  dcTco  ot.O'ZOOQ      -zou  sx    (jy.6-ooc,   6[j.a?  xa}.s(7avT0i; 
dc  '-pwc,  36 ;  2  zlc,  to  OuuiJ-aTTOv      zlc,  to  O-auj^vOCTTOv  auToO  cpoi? 
a'jTou  cpwc.     Cf.  Eph.  1  ;   18,  5  ; 
8—14. 

This  is  a  closer  parallel  to  the  above  passage  in  I  Clement  than  is 
to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  In  fact  the  two  references  in 
I  Clement  reproduce  both  the  thought  and  phraseology  of  I  Peter. 
Similar  thought  appears  in  Ephesians  but  the  form  is  much  different. 
The  use  of  the  word  liziGy.ozo'/  v.  3,  finds  its  closest  N.  T.  parallel 
in  I  Pt.  2  ;  25.  Clement  speaks  of  God  as  the  bishop  of  7tV£U[j.a-::o)v 
while  our  author  makes  Christ  the  bishop  of  '|»tJ//>v.  In  the  same 
context  both  writers  employ  the  same  metaphorical  expression  for 
the  believers,  i.  e.,  TipopaTa.  The  doctrine  of  election  Bia  XpiaTou 
(cf.  64  ;  1)  is  particularly  Petrine.  Cf.  I  Pt.  1  ;  2,  21,  2  ;  9,  3  ;  18, 
5  ;  10.  It  is  important  to  note  that  "  election  through  Christ  "  is 
thought  of  in  both  instances  as  a  "  calling  from  darkness  to  light. 
The  similarities  of  thought  and  expression  in  chap.  59,  make  depen- 
dence here  very  probable. 

b— c 

(6)  I  Clem.  1 ;  3  I  Pt.  1  ;  17 

dt:cpoc7co7uo>>T^[j.7CT(Oi;  axpoacoTcoXvi^TCTWi; 

Dependence  here  is  made  very  probable  since  this  word,  which 
is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  appears  in  a  context  suggestive 
of  our  text,  which  context    also  contains    another   word    peculiar 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  403 

to  I  Peter,  and  others  common  with  it  but  rare  in  the  N.  T.      Cf. 
paraUels  No.  15-19,  27-30. 

(7)  1  Clem.  1 ;  3  I  Pt.  3 ;  7 
•7i[j.Y)v .  .  .  a7:ov£[j.ov':e?                             a-ov£[j.ovT£c  -i[xry 

'Arcovep-o)  occurs  but  this  one  time  in  the  N.  T.  That  Clement 
uses  Ttjr^v  as  its  object  in  a  context  suggestive  of  I  Peter  can 
hardly  be  accidental. 

(8)  I  Clem.  2  ;  2,  7  I  Pt.  4  ;  19 

xyccb'OTzoiiix  xyocb'O'Koiia, 

Professor  Carlyle  not  only  notes  that  this  word  occurs  nowhere 
else  in  the  N.  T.,  but  also  that  it  is  found  neither  in  the  LXX  nor 
other  Greek  versions  of  the  O.  T.  and  Apocrypha  ;  and  that  appar- 
ently it  does  not  occur  in  classical  literature.  The  word  is  very 
significant  in  this  connection. 

(9)  I  Clem.  2 ;  4  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  5  ;  7 

This  word,  which  occurs  in  no  other  book  of  the  N.  T.,  Carlyle 
says,  "  appears  in  the  LXX  only  in  I  Mac.  12  ;  10,  17,  but  in  the  sense 
of  brotherly  affection."  He  is  also  unable  to  find  the  w^ord  in  clas- 
sical literature.  (N.  T.  in  A.  F.  p.  57.)  It  is  also  significant  that  it 
is  found  in  direct  connection  with  .  .  .  crtJVStBT^o-sto?  (tov  apiO'[j.ov) 
Ttov  exXsxToiv  auTou.     Cf.  I  Pt.  2;  19,  3;  16,  21  and  1 ;  2,  2;  4,  6,  9. 

(lOj  I  Clem.  2:  1  I  Pt.  5  ;  1 

Although  this  is  a  favorite  Petrine  expression  it  affords,  in 
itself,  but  httle  evidence  for  or  against  dependence,  since  it  is 
also  common  in  the  letters  of  Paul.  Yet  taken  in  conjunction  with 
paraEels  8  and  9,  and  the  general  tone  of  the  passage  with  its  appeal 
to  their  witnessing,   the  probabilities  are  greatl}/   increased. 

Professor  Carlyle  is  justified  in  not  taking  into  account  the  last 
three  citations,  when  viewed  separately,  but  when  so  many  like- 
nesses, both  in  diction  and  thought,  occur  in  such  close  contextual 
connection,  one  is  justified  in  taking  into  account  less  striking  re- 
semblances and  in  giving  to  all  a  higher  rating. 


404  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

(11)  I  Clem.  16 ;  5,  6  I  Pt.  2  ;  24,  25 

TO)  i>.diXomi  ixo'zoo   Tj^-sT?   ?a&'Y][X£v.      o3  TO)  [xo)lo)Xi   ia9'Y)T£.     ^JTS  ydcp 
6   xavTSi;  (5)?  7ip6[3aTa   sTClavT^S-rj-      (j)^  7:p6{3a-a  7i>.avw[X£voi, 
[xsv.     Isa.  53  ;  5,  6. 

(12)  I  Clem.  16 ;  10  I  Pt.  2 ;  22 

OTi  avop-iav  oux  stcoiYjCTsv,  ouSs  6c  a[j.apT:iav  oux  s7rotY](7£v  ouBs 
£6p£9'Y]  ^oXoq  £v  TO)  (TT6[xai:t,  au-  £6p£9'Yi  ^67.0^  Iv  TTOjxa-i  auTou 
TOO.     Isa.  53;  9. 

(13)  I  Clem.  16 ;  14  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 

xai  auTO?  a[j-apTia?  TzoXko)^  av-  o?  toc?  a[j.apTia$  r^]j.m  [6[j.wv]  a'j- 
:^'v£YX£v.     Isa.  53;   12.  to?  avrlvEyxsv 

Quotations  12—13  show  they  were  not  copied  directly  from  I  Peter 
but  from  the  LXX.  That  these  quotations  from  Isa.  53  follow 
the  LXX  rather  than  our  Epistle  is  no  proof  that  the  latter  did 
not  suggest  their  use,  especially  since  Clement  did  not  consider  the 
N.  T.  writings  to  be  on  the  same  level  with  the  O.  T.  books.  If  he 
were  following  the  thought  of  I  Peter,  he  would,  in  that  case,  still  be 
inclined  to  refer  to  the  original  and  in  so  doing  quote  at  greater 
length,  just  as  he  has  done.  16  ;  10  follows  I  Pt.  2  ;  22  in  using 
zopib-i]  '^oXoc,  instead  of  b6}.ov.  Though  the  form  used  by  Clement 
and  our  author  is  found  in  x  c.  a.^  Swete  rejects  it  and  adopts 
Bolov  instead.  The  latter  reading  agrees  with  the  original. 
(1 "'?!  np"]p  S'?l.)  While  this  is  no  proof  that  Clement  was  influenced 
by  I  Peter  it  is  suggestive.  Dependence  here  is  indeed  made  very 
probable  by  the  use  of  the  word  'j7:oYpa[j.[j.6c  in  the  immediate 
context  with  these  quotations.     See  note  on  the  following  parallel. 

(14)  I  Clem.  16  ;  17  1  Pt.  2 ;  11 

6  6xoYpa[j.[j.6$  6  B£Bo[j.£voc  TjIxTv         6[j,Tv  6TCo7.i[XTCavo)v  bTzoypx\x[xw 

Professor  Bacon  has  rightly  noted  that  very  probably  Clement 
dipped  his  pen  into  our  author's  ink-well  when  he  wrote  "  uTroypajj.- 
[xoc,  of  the  suffering  of  Christ".  Cf.  also  33  ;  8.  (Bacon's  Intro- 
duction p.  151.)  This  word  is  not  found  anywhere  else  in  the 
N.  T.,  and  it  is  indeed  significant  that  St.  Peter  is  mentioned  by 
name  in  a  context  where  the  word  is  used.  Cf.  5  ;  4  and  5  ;  7. 
This  parallel  is  also  strengthened  by  the  occurrence  of  the  word 
Ta7C£tvo(ppov£0).     See  Paral.  22. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  405 

c 

(15)  I  Clem.  1 ;  3  I  Ft.  2 ;  13,  17 

7]YS[X6(71V        (17)      TOV      paTtXsb     Tl- 

Though  Clement  does  not  refer  to  secular  rulers  as  does  our 
author  yet  the  phraseology  is  very  suggestive  in  this  context. 
Note  that  this  passage  stands  between  parallels  6  and  7. 

(16)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3  I  Ft.  5 ;  5 

'ZOIC,  TrpecpuTspoi?"  vsot;  .  .  .  l-z-oi-      vstoTspoi    67roTaYY)TS    7:ps<7|3t>T£poi? 

TTSTS 

(17)  I  Clem.  1;  3  I  Pt.  3 ;  1 

Yuvai'fiv  Ts   £v  a[j.o)[j.o)  xal   (7S[j.v^      Bia  t5^c  Toiv  Y'^^aixcov  avaTTpocpv]? 
xal    aYvfj    aovoi^'^Vst,    xdcvra    stti-      ocveu  "koyoD  xspSrjOTjTov-ai 
-£>.£Tv  xapYjYYs^^sT^s, 

a[j.co[j.O(:  is  a  rare  word  in  the  N.  T.  Cf.  I  Pt.  1  ;  19.  aYvrj  (r'jv£t- 
BrjTEt  also  finds  a  similar  phrase  in  (7uv£i,B-/]'(nv  ayot.b%v  of  I  Pt.  3  ;  16,  21. 

(18)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3  I  Pt.  3 ;  1,  6 

crT£pY<>t>^ac       Kai>r,x6vT0)C       tcj?      67:o~a(7(76[j.£voi  xoTc  iSioi?  avSpaiTiv, 
avBpac  la'jToiv 

(19)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3  I  Pt.  3 ;  6 

£v    T£    T(o    xo«v6vt    T-^c    u'oxixyr^c      6)c  Happa   utctIxo'jte   tw  'Ajipaapi, 
bTZ(xpyo6Gixc  .  .  .  x'jpiov  ocutov  xaloticra' 

When  taken  separatel3'  these  references  have  little  value,  but  in 
view  of  the  Petrine  phrasing  and  vocabulary,  which  includes  two 
words  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  and  others  which  appear  but 
rarely,  and  the  Petrine  sequence  of  thought  (cf.  parallels  6,  15,  7, 
16—19)  in  Chap.  I,  the  passage  suggests  that  Clement  was  acquainted 
with  our  Epistle. 

(20)  1  Clem.  7  ;  2,  4  I  Pt.  1  ;  18,  19 

§10    a::o>i-(oij.£v    xac    x£va?     xai  eiSots?  oti   o-j   (pD-ap-oTc,  apY'->P"!> 

[xaxaiac    cppov-iBa?,    xa\   E>.0'wp<£v  ■?)     /p'J'^U;),     s}.tJi:pwQTjT£    Ix     ty;: 

£TO    Tov    £•>/.};£•?)    xal    a-£ij.vov    T-^c  [xccxccicc^  6[j.(ov  livaTTpocp-^;  -oc-rpo- 

xapaBoTEco?  Yj[j.wv  xo!.v6yrx,  .  .  .  ocxt-  TzapaBoTO-j,   alloc   tiij.u.)  aiij.^Tt  oj; 

viTcoij.Ev  £1?  TO  od\).(x  -ZOO  XpicTiToO  (xpoO   aij.(oij.o'j  xal  a'7-i}.o'j  XptT- 

xai   Y'^wiJ.Ev    bic    zaziv    -iij.tov    Toi  tou  .  .  . 


I 


406  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

O-ew  Tw  TuaTpi  auToD,  O'^'i  Bia  tyjv 
rj[j-£T£pav  atoTTjpiav  ex/uO-sv  T^avxi 
-w  xo(7[JLw  [j-STavoiai;  /aptv  Ixr- 
vsyxsv 

"  These  passages  present  many  points  of  correspondence  of  phrase 
and  thought,  but  the  conception  of  redemption  through  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  not  pecuhar  to  St.  Peter's  Epistles  in  the  N.  T.,  and  may- 
well  be  supposed  to  have  been  current  among  all  Christians."  Among 
the  "  many  points  of  correspondence "  Professor  Carlyle  should 
have  noted  that  aT[j.aT!,  'i^xoy  is  peculiar  to  our  Epistle.  It  is  also 
important  to  note  that  Clement  alludes,  in  the  immediate  context, 
to  the  preaching  of  Noah.  Cf.  I  Clem.  7  ;  6  with  I  Pt.  3  ;  20.  It 
seems  probable,  therefore,  that  this  Pauline  thought  traveled  by  the 
way  of  I  Peter. 

(21)  I  Clem.  13 ;  1  I  Pt.  2  ;  1 

.  .  o3v,  d(7:oO-£[j.evoi  ;:a(7av  .  .  .  dCTCoO-sfJisvoi,  o5v  xaaav  .... 

Monnier  thinks  there  is  a  reference  here  to  I  Peter.  This  may  be 
a  mere  coincidence,  and  indeed  we  should  so  conclude,  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  that  this  compound  word  (a-OTiD'r,[j.i)  is  not  common  in  the 
N.  T.,  and  that  it  is  used  here  in  a  connection  resembling  that  of 
I  Peter.  The  probabilities  are  increased  in  geometrical  ratio  to  the 
number  of  times  it  is  used  in  this  way.     Cf.  I  Clem.  30  ;  1  and  57  ;  2. 

(22)  I  Clem.  16  ;  1  I  Pt.  5 ;  2,  3 

TarjstvocppovoyvTwv     yap     Ittiv     6  7:oi[j.avaT£  ~b  |v  6pv  7;oi[j.vtov  ~oi> 

XpiG-TO?,    otjx  £-aipop.£V(ov   lr\   ~b  b'too,  [j.y]  dcwo(.yyf.x(jTM^  aXkcc  £xou- 

zoi[J.viov     a-jToO.        TO      ovv-?)7r-pov  cuoc,     [xr^l     aicr/poxspBoii;     aXko: 

....  oov.  rfkb-z'/  £v   xo'[j.7:co  aXcx^o-  T.^ob'UiJxoc,  [j.yiB'  w?  xa-axupisuov-ES 

v£iac     oohz     67r£prjcpavia5,    xai:r£p  twv  xXyj'pojv  aW.a  t'jt.oi  Ytvo[j,£vot 

Btjva[j.£vo?,  ocXka  TaTTEivocppovwv  tou  7:oi,[j.voo!j* 

This  parallel  is  significant  in  this  context.  not[j.viov  is  a  rare 
word  in  the  N.  T.  It  is  used  in  all  five  times,  two  of  which  are  here. 
Neither  Lk.  12  ;  32  nor  Acts  20  ;  28,  29  shows  as  many  points  of 
likeness  to  I  Clement.  Acts  20  ;  28,  29  and  I  Pt.  5  ;  2,  3  have  much 
in  common  and  seem  to  be  related,  yet  the  context  with  its  appeal 
to  the  "  Suffering  Servant  "  of  II  Isaiah  is  more  in  accord  with  our 
author's  interpretation  of  Jesus.  Clement  uses  Ta7r£ivo(ppov£o> 
(16;  1,  17)  in  harmony  with TaTCEivocppoo-uvYj  of  I  Pt.  5;  5  and  TaTOivow 
of  5  ;  6.     As  in  I  Peter  those  in  authority  are  exhorted  not  to  exalt 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  407 

themselves  over  the  flock,  but  to  be  in  a  spirit  of  humility.  Signi- 
ficantly enough,  he  follows  our  author's  characteristic  way  of  appeal- 
ing to  the  example  of  Christ.  'r-sprjCpavoc  of  I  Pt.  5  ;  5  is  also  a 
rare  word  in  the  N.  T.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  there  is  much  here 
to  suggest  dependence.     Cf.  also  parallels  6,  7,  15—19. 

(23)  I  Clem.  30 ;  2  Prov.  8  ;  34  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 
b'zbc  yap,  '-prjTtv,  u-spTj-      Kijpioc  'j-opr/^avo!.;  av-      6  b-zbc  O-sprjOavo'.;  iv- 

TaxsivoTc    Bs    SiSojtiv      Bs  8i8o)0"iv  /apv/.  Be  BtBtoTtv  /apiv.    Cf. 

Xaptv  Jas.  4;  G. 

Clement  is  not  following  the  Hebrew  original  here,  which  words 
the  first  clause  very  differently,  but  the  LXX,  I  Peter  or  James. 
He  follows  the  LXX  in  omitting  the  article  "  6  "  with  the  subject, 
but  agrees  with  the  N.  T.  writers  in  changing  xtjpio;  to  O-so;,  Re- 
ference to  lusts,  adultery  and  justification  by  works  suggest  depen- 
dence upon  James,  while  the  Petrine  tone  of  the  exhortation,  before 
and  after  the  quotation,  plus  the  probable  reference  to  I  Peter  in 
V.  1,  make  it  more  probable  that  he  was  influenced  here  by  our 
Epistle. 

(24)  I  Clem.  61 ;  3  I  Pt.  2  ;  25 
apy(i,sps(»5  xol  TcpocTrdcTOD  twv  6'j-      "oipiva  xai  £7rioy.o~ov  Toiv   ouy^wv 

This  parallel  is  close  both  in  thought  and  form  of  expression. 
The  balancing  of  ap/ipsoj;  with  7:poo":a'70L),  corresponds  exactly  with 
7:oi[X£va  and  sxiTxoTtov,  while  both  are  followed  by  the  possessive 
genetive  ']>^»/cov. 

(25)  I  Clem.  64 ;  1  I  Pt.  5  ;  10 

6  Exls^aixevoc  .  .  .  Y][j.ac   St'    au-oti      6  -iK.oO^icy.c  .  .  .  h  XpiTTw 

The  membrans  of  the  parallel  are  introduced  by  "  6  "  with  an 
aorist  participle  of  antecedent  action.  This  identical  construction 
of  synonymous  participles  being  followed  by  a  phrase  expressing 
Christ  as  means  or  agent  is  indeed  suggestive. 

(26)  I  Clem.  64 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  10 

SIC    y^aov    TTspiojjaiov  .  .  .  ap/top£(oc      jja-rDsSiov    ispaTS'jij.a  .  .  .  }.ao;    si; 

T^SptTTOlYlTlV 

The  "  royal  priesthood  "  of  believers  would  very  naturally  suggest 
that  Christ  himself  was  the  great  "  high  priest." 


408  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

d 

(27)  I  Clem.  1 ;  1  I  Pt.  1 ;  2,  2  ;  4,  6,  9 

Iv.'kzv.'xoic,  ixXsxToc 

This  word  appears  four  times  in  I  Peter  and  but  six  times  in  all 
the  Pauline  literature. 

(28)  I  Clem.  1;  2  I  Pt.  1;  1,  2;  11 

This  word  is  found  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  Heb.  11  ;  13  and  the  two 
places  noted  above. 

(29)  I  Clem.  1 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  18 

iTUStXY]'  S7ieix£(7tV 

A  rare  word  in  the  N.  T. 

(30)  I  Clem.  1 ;  2  I  Pt.  4 ;  9 

The  form  of  the  word  used  by  Clement  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  only 
in  Rom.  12  ;  13  and  Heb.  13  ;  2.  Though  the  form  of  the  word  which 
our  author  employed  is  slightly  different  the  context  is  much  more 
suggestive  of  his  Epistle.     Cf.   parallels  6,   15,   7,   16—19,   27—30. 

(31)  I  Clem.  7;  6  I  Pt.  3;  20 

N(0£    IxTjpuSsv    [j.£Tavoiav,    xai    ot      ...  Nois   xaTacrx£L»a^o[j.£vrj?   ya(3oj- 
67caxou(javT£?  £(7o)0""/]O'av  Toti  £??  Yjv  oTlyoi,  tout    £a"~iv  6x- 

This  parallel  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  No.  20. 

(82)  I  Clem.  21  ;  6  1  Pt,  1  ;  19 

oO  (XptcToD)  TO  al[j,a   uxkp  r^jj-wv      zkuT^Mbr^xt  .  . .  Tipo)     al[j.aTi  .  .  . 

IBo'S^Y)  XptTTOO 

This  thought  is  common  in  the  N.  T. 

(33)  I  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  2 ;  13 

TOLx;    xpo7]YOU[jivou<;    y][xwv    odbza-      b^ozdyrizt  Tracrfi  avQ^pcomv/]  XTt(7£t 

Q'WJXEV  .  .  .  £tT£     ^(KCiXtX  .  .  .  £tT£     Y]Y£[Xo'(7!.V 

The  general  tone  is  Petrine,  but  the  rulers  to  which  Clement 
alludes  are  Ecclesiastical  and  not  Political  as  in  I  Peter. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  409 

(34)  I  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  5 ;  5 

Tou?  TvpsapyTspciu?  yi[j.wv  TipjO-wfjxv,      vctoTcpot,    67:oTaYrjT£    7:peo-[3uT£potc 

This  is  quite  suggestive  of  our  Epistle. 


(35)  1  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  3  ;  1  f . 

Tocc  ^(wm:Ay.c  y][j.cov  s-i  to  ayaO-ov      ■^u'^oixy.tc^  •j-OTaTG-o'iJ.svat 
BiopS'toawjj.sO^a 

The  thought  is  in  accord  but  the  phrasing  is  different. 


(36)  I  Clem.  21 ;  7  I  Pt.  3 ;  2 

TO  a£i(XYa7Tr]T0v  t-^c  ayveia?  rjO-o?      e~07:T£y'i7avT£?  T-r;./  Iv  cpo(3o)  ayvviv 
£vB£t'£a<j6(o'7av  ocvao-Tpoor;/  'jij.wv 

The  terms  employed  do  not  indicate  acquaintance,  yet  the  sequence 
(No.  35  and  36)  is  very  suggestive. 


(37)  I  Clem.  21  ;  7  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  b 

TO   iizitiyCzq   t-J]c   yJ^ionrrr^c  .  .  .  Bia      Bia  ttj?  twv  yuvoctxcov  ava(rTpocp% 
T%  (7iY%  .     .  av£D  y^jyou  .  .  . 

This  citation  finds  a  closer  parallel  in  Paul's  letters,  and  can  have 
no  value  here  further  than  to  show  that  Clement  thought  in  a  sphere 
akin  to  that  of  our  Epistle. 

(38)  I  Clem.  21 ;  8  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 

Ta  T£xva  .  .  .  [j.aQ'£T(oaav,  -i  ~ix~zi-      v£c6T£poi  .  .  .  tt,v    TaTTEivo'-ppocryvviv 

VOCppOT'JVA)    Xapa    0'£CO    W/'JZl  tf7.0\X^0i<7lX(jb-3 

There  is  here  a  close  parallel,  though  in  itself  not  sufficient  to  make 
dependence  probable. 

None  of  the  citations  of  chapter  21  considered  separately  justify 
any  claim  for  dependence,  but  when  the  combined  evidence  is  pre- 
sented, the  probabihties  are  increased  in  geometrical  ratio  of  the 
number  of  the  possible  points  of  contect.     See  No.  32—38. 


410 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(39)  I  Clem.  30;  1 


I  Pt.  1;.15,  2;  9 

Ayioi  yiwzab'Z  yivo(;  sxXsxirov  .  .  . 

Monnier  sees  a  likeness  here  between  30  ;  1  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  15. 
Though  not  as  close  in  wording,  his  reference  is  related  in  thought 
more  closely  to  I  Pt.  2  ;  9. 


(40)  I  Clem.  30 ;  1  I  Pt.  2 ;  1 

cpsuyovTsc  yicczakcckiccc,  (5;7coS>£[X£voi  y-ccucckcckiccc, 

The  thought  in  the  contexts  of  these  references  is  also  much  the 


same. 


(41)  I  Clem.  36 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

SIC  TO  Q-aufj-aaxciv  auTOu  owe  dc,  to  O-aujxao-Tov  aaToO  cpoii; 

This  verbatim  agreement  is  indeed  suggestive,  but  the  context 
is  thoroughly  Pauline. 


Order  of  Parallels. 


I  Clement 

I  Peter 

I  Clement 

[  Petei 

Int.     =  1 

1 

16 

14  =  2 

24 

=  1 

2 

16 

17  =  2 

11 

1  , 

1   =  1 

2,  2  ;  4,  6,  9 

21 

6  =  1 

19 

1  , 

2   =  1 

1,  2  ;  11 

21 

6  =  2 

13 

1 

2=2 

18 

21 

6  =  5 

5 

1 

3   =  1 

17 

21 

6  =  5 

5 

1 

3=2 

13,  17 

21 

6  =  3 

If. 

1 

3   =  3  , 

7 

21 

7  =  3 

2 

1 

3=5 

5 

21 

7  =  3 

lb 

1 

3=3 

1 

21 

8  =  5 

5 

1 

3=3 

1,  6 

22 

2  =  3 

10 

1 

3=3 

6 

30 

1  =  1 

15,  2 

2 

1   =  1 

11,  4  ;  13,  5  ;  1, 

9   30 

1  =  2 

1 

2 

2.  7  =  4 

19 

30 

2  =  5 

5 

2 

4=2 

17,  5  ;  7 

36 

2  =  2 

9 

7 

2,  4  =  1 

18,  19 

49 

5  =  4 

8 

7 

6=3 

20 

59 

;  2  =  2 

9 

13 

1   =  2 

1 

61 

,3  =  2 

25 

16 

1   =  5 

2,  3 

64 

;  1  =  5 

10 

16 

5,  6  =  2 

24,  25 

64 

;  2  =  2 

,  9 

16 

,  10   =  2 

;  22 

First  Epistle  of  Peter.  411 

Conclusion. 
The  foregoing  study  has  shown  that  Clement  has  used  words 
which  are  peculiar  to  our  Epistle  in  most  significant  connections, 
as  well  as  O.  T.  quotations  common  with  our  Epistle  in  unmistakably 
Petrine  contexts.  Of  course  no  one  can,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  dis- 
cussion of  this  nature,  place  his  Q.  E.  D.,  but  if  Professor  Sanday  is 
correct  in  saying  "  the  occurence  of  the  same  ideas  in  the  same  order 
must  be  accepted  as  conclusive  evidence  "  (I.  C.  C.  on  Rom.  p.  Ixxvi), 
we  have  shown  that  I  Clement  is  dependent  on  I  Peter.  Monnier 
contends  that  "  Clement  connait  I'epitre.  II  ne  la  cite  pas  expresse- 
ment  :  il  I'utilise."  (Com.  p.  307.)  Knopf  reaches  a  similar  con- 
clusion :  "In  Rom.  wird  noch  vor  der  Jahrhundertwende  I.  Petri 
wahrscheinlich  von  I.  Clem,  benutzt."  .  .  .  (Das  nachapostolische 
Zeitalter  p.  34.) 


Part  II.— CANONICAL  BOOKS 

GALATIANS 

B 

b— c 
I  Ft.  1  ;  23—25  Gal.  4 ;  4—7,  28—31 

Professor  Bacon  (Com.  on  Gal.  p.  8,  75,  93)  notes  a  close  parallel, 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth  from  "  spiritual  seed,"  in  the  above 
references.  In  his  letter  to  the  Romans  (4  ;  19—21,  9  ;  7—9),  Paul 
"  reckons  the  children  of  the  promise  for  a  seed,"  9  ;  9.  They  become 
sons  through  adoption,  Gal.  4  ;  5,  (Rom.  8  ;  15,  23,  9  ;  4,  Eph.  1  ; 
5).  While  the  idea  is  the  same  in  our  Epistle,  our  author,  in 
accord  with  later  writers  (Jn.  1  ;  13,  3  ;  5,  Jas.  1  ;  18,  I  Jn.  3  ;  9) 
used  the  figure  as  a  "  new  birth  "  instead  of  an  "  adoption."  There 
seems  to  be  evidence  here  not  only  of  borrowing  but  also  of  a  later 
stratum  of  thought. 

I  Pt.  2 ;  16  Gal.  5  ;  13 

Mc,  i'ktub'zpoi,  Ttoi  [XY]  oic,  sTctxdcX-  'jp-sT?  yap  £-'  ilzob-zpicc  IxT^yJO-TiTS 
'h)^\).x  lypy'^zc  —qc,  xcodcc^  ty]v  l\-  aBs^cpoi*  [j.ovov  [j.y]  tyiv  slsuO-spiav 
suQ-spiav  a^X"  w?  Bsoti  BoOlot  dc,   aoopij.TjV   tt?)   rrapxt,    oOJ.cc  Bta 

■zylc,  aydcTTr]^  BosjIsuts  aWvTjXotc 

The  likeness   here  is  striking.      In  both  cases  a  reference  to  the 
defeat  of  persecutors  precedes.     The  freedmen  are  exhorted  alike 
Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  28  January,  1913. 


412  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

not  to  use  their  liberty  as  license  but  (notice  the  antithesis  uXkoC) 
to  use  it  as  becometh  true  servants.  I  Cor.  7  ;  22  is  a  close  parallel. 
TheBoOT^Oi;  Xpta-ToD  or  Bou>.o?  too  Hsou  is  a  common  Paulinism,  but  on 
the  whole  certainly  no  reference  can  outdo  Gal.  5  ;  13,  as  the  probable 
source  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  16.  Cf.  Hort's  "  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter." 
p.  146. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  Gal.  3  ;  13 

6c  Tocr  a[j.apTiac;  yi[j.wv  at>-6c  av-  XpicTo?  Ti[->-0(.c.  s^Tiyopacev  sx  xt^(; 
rlvsyxsv  sv  tw  <jO)\).cc-i  auToO  l%i  xaTocpac  tou  v6[j.ou  ysvo^j-svoi;  67U£p 
TO   c'Jlov  ■/)[j,cov  xocTocpa  .  .  .  sTTixaTapairoi;  TTOcc 

6  xps[j-a[X£vos  £7ci  '^oXoo 

I  Pt.  2  ;  24  from  Isa.  53  ;  4,  5,  6,  11,  probably  was  suggested  by 
Galatians.  Rom.  8  ;  3,  II  Cor.  5  ;  21,  etc.,  contain  the  idea  of  vicarious 
suffering,  as  does  I  Pt.  2  ;  24a,  but  they  do  not  specifically  allude 
to  the  iu^vov  as  does  Gal.  3  ;  13.  Thus  on  both  counts  Gal.  3  ;  13 
is  more  closely  related  to  our  Epistle. 


c 

(4,  I  Pt.  1;  4  Gal.  4 ;  7,  3 ;  18 

dc  x//ripovo^iav  acpD-ap^ov  xai  aiji-      tl  Kz   uioc,   xai   x}^-/ipov6[j«o?   0£O!> 
avTov  xai  aixapavTOv,  TSTYjpYi^svrjv      Bia  Xpi,G-:o!j  3;   18  xXY]povo[J.ta 

£v  o'jpavoTc  £ic  'j^xac 

In  Gal.  3  ;  18,  Rom.  4  ;  13  f.,  (Heb.  6  ;  12,)  the  promise  of  the 
"inheritance"  is  already  fulfilled.  In  Gal.  4  ;  7  (Rom.  8  ;  161), 
as  in  I  Peter,  the  "  inheritance  "  is  present,  "being  inseparable  from 
sonship."  (Hort  "  Ep.  of  St.  Peter,"  p.  35).  The  idea  is  too  common 
in  the  N.  T.,  and  the  context  too  dubious  to  be  sure  of  dependence, 
yet  the  parallel  I  Pt.  3  ;  6  =  Gal.  4  ;  26  makes  it  quite  probable. 

(5)                          I  Pt.  1  ;  5  Gal.  3 ;  23 

TO'JC  £v  Buva[j,£t   0£O!j   cppoupoi;[j.£-  7:p6  ~o\j  Bk  IT^O'eTv  ttjv  TuiaTiv,  67:6- 

voui;    Bia    zifj'zoic,    dc    (jcoTYipiav  v6[j.ov  £opotjpo!J[X£Q'a,  <7uyx£x>.sio-[X£- 

iToi\vfiv   a7coxa>.'jo&^-^va!,    Iv   xaipw  voi  dc  tTjV  ixilloofjcc^  mcTtv  (xto- 

so-ydcTw  xaX'jcp6v]vai 

This  parallel  is  very  important.  Paul  said,  "  before  faith  they 
were  kept  under  the  law,"  I  Peter  then  notes  "  they  were  kept  through 
faith,"  whereas  both  have  in  view  the  "  future  revelation."     This 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  413 

doctrine  of  the  believer's  security  is  common  in  the  Fourt:h  Gospel 
(Jn.  10 ;  28,  29,  17  ;  11,  12,  15),  as  well  as  in  the  Pauline  Literature, 
but  nowhere  is  the  likeness  so  close  in  both  members,  i.  e.,  the  ideas 
of  "  the  behever's  security  "  and  of  "  the  future  revelation." 

(6)  I  Pt.  1;  18  Gal.  3;  13 

ou    cp8>ap'L&T?    .  ,  .   IXuTpoiO-rj-rs    iv.  Xpiaro^   rj[j,ai;  s^Tiyopao-sv   Iy.  tyj? 

'Vfic,  [xaTaia?  ujjiaiv  avaa-pocp-^S  rca-  xaTdcpa^  to3  v6[jlo!j 

TpoTcapaBoTou 

As  has  been  noted  elsewhere  this  is  a  weakened  form  of  Paulinism. 

0)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Gal.  5  ;  17 

hzt/zcib-ixi     Tcov    crapxixwv    sTrtQ'U-  •/]    yap    Tap':;    smS-ujj.eT   xa^a    TotJ 

[j.tfi)v,    aiTivs?    CTpairsuovTai    xaxa  xveu[j.aTo?,  to  Bs  7:v£!j[j.a  xaira  tJji; 

TT^i;  ^J^u/t;?  aap/,6i;-  raU-ra  Bs  avTixciTai  a}.>.r|- 

The  internal  warfare,  of  which  St.  Paul  so  frequently  speaks,  is 
here  alluded  to.  Jas.  4  ;  1  likewise  refers  to  it,  but  this  later  writer, 
of  course,  cannot  have  suggested  it  to  either  of  these  earlier  authors. 
It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  our  author  is  following  Rom. 
7  ;  23  or  Gal.  5  ;  13.  The  parallels  I  Pt.  2  ;  16  =  Gal.  5  ;  13  and 
I  Pt.  4  ;  3  ^  Gal.  5  ;  21,  however,  seem  to  make  it  more  probable 
that  he  is  influenced  by  Galatians  at  this  point. 


d 

(8)  I  Pt.  3  ;  6  Gal.  4 ;  26 

oic,  Sappa  ...  %   £Y£VY]8-/]'!r£   tex-      "/j    Bh;    avo)   '\z^o\j(jcCkr\\i.    IXz'jb-ipoc 
va .  .  IcTtv,    riziq    iG~\    [J.v]''i:v]p    Tcaviwv 

Holtzmann  calls  attention  to  this  similarity  of  thought.  (Einl. 
p.  314.)  Though  there  is  nothing  striking  in  the  phrases,  the  like- 
ness is  worthy  of  consideration  in  view  of  the  parallel  to  which 
Professor  Bacon  alludes,  i.  e.,  I  Pt.  1  :  23-25  =  Gal.  4  ;  4-7,  28-31. 

(9)  I  Pt.  4 ,  3  Gal.  5 ;  20,  21 

TO  b-zkfiii.cc  Toiv   lO'Vcov   xaTspyacr-      .  .  toc  zpyx   ■zr^c,    -japzo?  .  .  .  ocuzk- 
aa8>ai,  7i£TCop£U[j.£vou?  £v  ocnzy^yziccii;,      yzicc^    £iB(o7.oXaTp£ia,     oap[xax£ta, 


414  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

iTciQ'itpai?,    oSvocpluyiat?,    xoj[j.ot?,      ^'/p'pM  Ipziq,  ZylXoi,  Q>ujjLot,  spiO-sTat, 

pziccic  [xsB-ai,  xw[xoi  .  .  . 

Holtzmann  thinks  the  similarity  may  show  dependence,  (Einl. 
p.  314,)  yet  there  seems  to  be  nothing  to  commend  it  over  and  above 
Eph.  2  ;  2,  3,  4  ;  17,  I  Thes.  4  ;  5,  Tit.  3  ;  3,  Rom.  13  ;  13,  I  Cor.  6  ; 
9,  Eph.  5  ;  5,  etc. 

Although  the  parallels  are  not  numerous,  and  there  are  no  words 
found  only  in  these  two  Epistles,  the  combined  evidence  of  those 
examples  classed  as  "  b — c  "  and  "  c"  make  it  quite  probable  that 
there  is  here  a  literary  dependence.  Scholars  are  almost  unanimous, 
of  course,  in  giving  to  "  Galatians  "  the  priority.  Bigg,  however, 
thinks  "  if  a  writer  calling  himself  Peter  had  read  Galatians  he  would 
have  made  distinct  allusion  to  the  second  chapter."  The  fact  that 
no  such  allusion  is  to  be  found  in  I  Peter  may  be  regarded  as  a  strong 
indirect  argument  in  favor  of  its  authenticity."  Now  our  interest 
here  is  not  whether  the  Epistle  is  authentic  or  not,  but  we  are  inter- 
ested in  the  relative  positions  of  these  two  Writings.  Does  it  not 
seem,  though,  that  the  silence  would  be  quite  as  natural  for  one 
"  caUing  himself  Peter"  as  for  Peter  himself?  Certainly  Peter 
would  have  chafed  at  such  scathing  allusions,  while  a  later  writer 
would  not  feel  the  sting  of  the  thrust  at  Peter.  Furthermore  the 
letter  comes,  more  probably,  from  a  later  period  of  mediation,  though 
not  so  late  as  the  Tiibingen  School  would  contend.  To  say  "  the 
author's  silence,  if  writing  before  Galations,  is  natural  "  is  almost 
naive.  The  circumstances  under  which  the  letter  was  written  and 
the  conditions  revealed  in  it  make  it  impossible  to  suppose  it  to 
have  been  written  at  such  an  early  period. 


I  THESSALONIANS 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  I  Thes.  5 ;  6 

vYjcpovTs?,  ■zzkzioK  D^TTicaTs  .  .  YpY]Yop5>[j.sv  xai  vr;cpo)[j.£v.  Cf .  5 ;  8. 

A  closer  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  Rom.  13  ;  11  —  13. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  14  I  Thes.  4 ;  5 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  415 

Cf.  I  Cor.  15  ;  34,  Gal.  4 ;  8,  Eph.  2  ;  12,  4  ;  18,  22,  II  Thes.  1  ;  8. 
See  also  Romans  Ex.  9  (i.  e.,  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  =  Rom.  12  ;  2),  which  more 
probably  sustains  some  relation  to  this  verse. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  15  I  Thes.  4 ;  7 

a}.}.a   xaTOc    tov   xaT^scravTct   ujxa?      o'j  yap  s/.axecrsv  f,[J.ac  6  ©so?  Im 
aytov    xai    a'jTOi    aytoi,     sv    Tracrrj      axaO'apTia  a/.}'   sv  ayiaTiJ.oi 
avaTTpoor,  y£v/)Q>T,T£ 

The  thought  and  wording  are  close,  yet  not  such  as  to  make  depen- 
dence here  more  probable  than  in  Rom.  11  ;  2.     See  Rom.  Ex.  10. 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  I  Thes.  4 ;  9 
ofXkr^'k'Jix;  !xyax-f,G-aT£  sxtsvw?              i)\i.zXc  O-soBiBaxTOi  i>7~t  zlc  to  aya- 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  9,  10,  or  Ex.  13. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  17  I  Thes.  4 ;  9 

Tr,v  ocbtloi-r^-ix  ayaTcaTS  Tcspi  tyJ?  (fikfi^zk^^ixc,  .  .  .  !j[j.£T?  O-so- 

BiBaxTOi  £C7T£  £1?  TO  aya~av  aTvT^v]- 

>vOU? 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  10  a,  or  Ex.  44. 

(6)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  I  Thes.  5 ;  15 

aYj  a7:oBiB6vT£?  xaxov  avTi  xaxoS  [j.y]  ti?  xaxov  avTi  xaxoD  tivi  axoBco 

See  Rom.  12  ;  17  for  an  exact  parallel,  which  is  also  in  a  better 
context. 

(7)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  I  Thes.  5 ;  6 
ao)(ppovra-aT£    o3v  xai    vr/l»aT£    £?$  ypY,yopw[j.£v  xcci  vr,(pco[j.£v 
7cpo(7£a/^ac 

In  I  Pt.  4  ;  7  b  the  exhortation  is  given  in  view  of  the  imminent 
judgment  (4  ;  7  a)  likewise  in  I  Thes.  5  ;  6,  they  are  exhorted  to 
watchfulness  that  they  may  be  ready  for  the  sudden  coming  of  the 
Lord  (5  ;  1—4).  I  Thes.  5  ;  5  seems  to  interrupt  this  thought  and  make 
the  exhortation  an  appeal  for  consistent  action  on  the  part  of  the 
"children  of  light.  "     Cf.  Col.  4  ;  2,  Mt.  26  ;  41,  Lk.  21  ;  34. 

(8)  I  Pt.  4;  15  I  Thes.  4;  11 

[[J.Y]     Ti;     'J[J.WV     Traa/STO)]      6)C  .  .   .         7tpa'7<7£tV    TOC    T^IOC 

a}.Xo':pi£7:iaxo7:oc 

The  background  here  is  very  different. 


416 

Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(9) 

I  Pt.  5;  8 

I  Thes.  5  ;  6 

vrj^jjaTTS, 

YpTiYopTcraTs 

Yp7]Yopa)[xsv  xai  v7]'jio)[X£v 

This  parallel  is  very  suggestive,  yet  is  probably  accidental.     Cf. 
Examples  1  and  7. 

(10)  I  Pt.  5  ;  9  I  Thes.  3  ;  2,  3 

w    avTiaTrrjTs    CTTSpsoi    -r^    tJ.(i-zi      TrapaxaXsaat    6[j.a5   Tuepl  rrric,  tci<t- 

Dependence  may  easily  be  inferred  from  this  parallel,  yet  the  con- 
text does  not  warrant  us  to  consider  it  more  than  a  mere  possibility. 

We  are  not  to  conclude  from  the  above  study  that  either  Epistle 
presupposes  the  other. 


II  THESSALONIANS 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  II  Thes.  2  ;  13 

sv  aYiacr[j.to  Hvsujj.aTO?  sv  aYia(7[xo)  Tlvsufjiairoc 

"  Election  "  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  is  set  forth  here 
in  a  way  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T,  The  thought  is  Pauline 
and  the  verbal  agreement  closer  than  elsewhere.  The  context, 
however,  is  not  suggestive  of  I  Peter. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1  ;  13  II  Thes.  1  ;  7 

sv  oLT.o-A.'xXyhzi  "IrjaoO  XpiaToQ  Iv  t^  axoxa^.'j'iei  Toti  xuptou  Iy,<70u 

Again  there  is  verbal  agreement.  It  is  significant  that  "  angels  " 
are  spoken  of  in  the  immediate  contexts,  yet  they  play  very  different 
roles. 

(3)  I  Pt.  5  ;  3  II  Thes.  3  ;  9 

(4)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  II  Thes.  2 ;  17 

OT7]pi2ai  '  ainripi^ai 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  417 

(5)  I  Pt.  5;  10  II  Thes.  B;  3 

TTOVTjpoti 

These  last  three  parallels  need  not  detain  us. 

As  in  I  Thessalonians,  there  is  no  word  common  to  these  Epistles 
only,  and  clearly  the  evidence  will  not  warrant  any  claim  for  depen- 
dence. 

I  CORINTHIANS 
C 

c— d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  I  Cor.  1 ;  4,  7 

IXmo-axs    £7ui   ttjv   cpspojjivTjV   6[J.Tv      X^piv  ...  (7)  6[j-a;   [t:r^  -jT—psTT- 
-7oii  [j.£vou$   i:r,v   dcTCOxa'j'jdv  to'j  xupiou 

Y1[J.0)V   'IyITOU    XplTTOL) 

The  hope  of  a  great  blessing  at  the  "  Parousia  "  is  Pauline,  though 
not  pecuHar  to  him.  (Cf.  II  Thes.  1  ;  7.)  "Ev  utzoy-ocIu'^zi  'Irjcoti 
Xpio-Tou  is  the  Pauline  term  for  the  Parousia."  (Cone,  Com.  on  I 
Pet.  p.  306).  This  is  the  closest  parallel  to  I  Pt.  1  ;  13  in  the  N.  T., 
yet  it  is  not  conclusive. 

(2)  I    Pt.  2 ;  2  I  Cor.  3 ;  2 

o)?  api:iY£vv7]T(x  ^ps-pTj  to  loyixov      w;  vTj-ioi?  sv  Xpi<7Tw  yaXa   b}xot^ 
y.'bolov  ■'(oCka  hziizob^n^z  I-o-igol.  ou  ppwjxa,  o-jtw  yap  IB'J- 

Heb.  5  ;  12,  13  has  a  similar  figure.  Heb.  6  ;  5  also  corresponds 
closely  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  3.  The  passages  in  the  above  Parallel  refer 
to  those  who  are  "tull  of  hearing."  I  Cor.  3  ;  1,  2  is  followed  in 
V.  3  by  thought  much  hke  I  Pt.  2  ;  1.  Both  textually  and  contextu- 
ally  then  this  is  the  nearest  N.  T.  parallel,  and  may  indicate  a  real 
point  of  contact.     (Cf.  Holtzmann's  Einleitung  p.  314.) 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  16  I  Cor.  7 ;  22 

w$  iXtub't^rji  .   .  .  a}>}.'    MC  HoOJ      6  Dx'JQ-spo?  yJ.r^Osic,    Botiy.o;  sg-ti 
Bou>.oi  XptTTOD 

No  other  N.  T.  passage  reproduces  this  thought  so  closely,  except 
Gal.  5  ;  13.  The  probabilities  of  dependence  here  are  increased  by 
the  possible  echo  of  I  Cor.  7  ;  23  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  18. 


418  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(4)  I  Pt.  5;  3  I  Cor.  3;  9a 

[j.-r]B'      cot;     xaTaxupisuovTs?     twv      i(7[xzv    Tuvepyoi  *    BsoD    yzoypyio"^. 
xXvjpfov 

This  parallel  becomes  more  significant  when  taken  in  connection 
with  ^zoo  oly^o^o^x-f]  laxt  of  I  Cor.  3  ;  9b.  Cf.  also  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  = 
I  Cor.  3  ;  16. 

(5)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  I  Cor.  9 ;  25 

)tO[JLi£T(r8>s    Tov     a[i.apavTt,vov     t^?      hoc    (^b-oL^-b^^    TTscpavov    }.a[joj(nv, 
Bo^Yj?  o-Tscpavov  vi[J.£T?  Bs  acpB-ap-ov 

This  figure  may  have  been  borrowed  from  I  Cor.  9  ;  25.  In  nei- 
ther of  the  other  parallels  (II  Tim.  4  ;  8  and  Jas.  1  ;  12)  is  the  imper- 
ishable nature  of  the  crown  mentioned.  Since  I  Peter  cannot  depend 
upon  James,  and  the  connection  with  II  Timothy  is  very  dubious 
the  dependence  of  our  Epistle  upon  I  Corinthians  is  all  the  more 
probable  at  this  point. 

d 

(6)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  I  Cor.  3 ;  13 

Boxipov  6^wv  mG-zoK  .  .  .  Bia  tcu-      sxaaTou  to  Ipyov  .  .  .  ot'.  sv  Tiupl 
p6?  Bs  Boxt^a^o[j.£vou  .  .  aTcoxaT^UTCTSTar    xal    sxaTTou    zb 

spyov  bizoioy  s(7T!,  TO  TCtip  5c»xt[;.a(jei 

A  closer  duplicate  is  found  in  Jas.  1  ;  2,  3,  though  the  figure  here 
is  much  the  same.     Although  the  background  is  very  different  in 
these  Epistles,  I  Cor.  3  ;  13  may  have  suggested  the  figure  to  our 
author. 
(7;  I  Pt.  1 ;  18  I  Cor.  6 ;  20,  7 ;  23 

ou   cpQ-apToT?  .  .  .   £>>uTpc6&-rjT£  Ix      6  ;  20  Yiyopao-8^Y)T£  yap  ti[x^?  7  ;  23 
TY]?  [xaTaiac  6[J.wv  avacTTpocpYji;  .  .  .      ti^j-Tj?  Yiyopaa&YiTE 
c/Xkoi.  Ti[j.iw  at[jiaTi  .  .  . 

The  idea  is  Pauline,  though  the  deliverance  from  a  vain  manner 
of  life  is  a  mild  statement  as  compared  with  Gal.  3  ;  13.  Ti[j.y]? 
and  ai[j.aTi  seem  to  refer  to  the  same  thing. 

(8)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  I  Cor.  15 :  14 

Tov  £y£ipavTa  a^Tov  Ix  v£xpcov  .  .  zl  Vz  XptcrTOi;  oux  lyYjyspTat,   [x£- 

wo-T£  TYjv  ;ri(7Ti,v  6^wv  xai  IXwBa  vov  apa   to   x-iqpuy[j.a  "?i[j.wv]    X£V?) 

filvat  zic,  (")£6v  Be  xa\  ■/]  maTti;  6[j.wv.     Cf.  13  ;  13. 

The  parallel  is  suggestive,  but  not  so  close  as  in  Romans.  Cf. 
I  Pt.  1  ;  21  =  Rom.  4  ;  24. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  419 

(9)  IPt.  2;5  ICor.  3;16 

:wsujj,aTtxoc  Toii  Osoti  oixsT  Iv  6pv 

The  figure  of  a  spiritual  temple  is  common  with  Paul.  Eph. 
2  ;  20-22  very  probably  suggested  this  figure  to  our  author.  See 
the  discussion  loco  citato. 

(10)  IPt.  2;  15  ICor.  15;  34 
apodtav                                                   ayvoTtav 

Although  this  word  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  the  N.  T., 
it  is  a  mere  coincidence  here.  It  seems  to  be  the  only  word  which 
is  found  in  these  two  Epistles  only. 

(11)  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  I  Cor.  14  ;  34 
yuvaTxsc  6-o-:a'7'76[j.£va!,  toT?  iBioic      jjy(/xY.z(;  6[j.6iv  .  .  .  oOXy.  -j-OTOcd- 
avBpacriv                                                o-EcrQ-at 

A  closer  parallel  is  found  in  Eph.  5  ;  22.     Cf.  also  5  ;  33. 

(12)  I  Pfc.  3 ;  lb  I  Cor.  7 ;  14 

I'va   £1  Ttv£5   aOTiS-ouTtv  t6>    Xo-^m      YjYia(7Tai  y^p  ^  ^'^'^^i^  6  a7:i7T0?  Iv 
Bta  TTj?  Twv  yuvaixwv  avacTpocp^      ttj  Yuvai/i 
av£u  "koyo'^  x£pBYjO"/iG-ovTai 

This  similarity  of  thought  is  probably  due  to  accident. 

'13)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  I  Cor.  4  ;  12 

\}:r,  a-oBiB6vT£c  xaxov  avTt  x:xxoij  AoiBopo'j[j.£vo!,   £'jXoyo!J[j.£v  •   Sw.>x6- 

■?)   >>o!,Bopiav    avTi   loiBopia?   tojv-  [xsvot    av£/6[j.£!>a    [jXa'7cpr|[j.o'J[j.£vot 

(xvTiov  Be  E'jAoyotJVTEc  ;:apaxaAoD[j.Ev 

Though  the  thought  is  the  same,  a  closer  parallel  is  to  be  found 
in  Rom.  12  ;  17,  14  ;  the  first  clause  of  which  is  in  verbal  agreement. 
See  the  discussion  on  this  passage  in  Romans. 

(14)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  I  Cor.  15 ;  3 

XpiTToc  a>roc'£  TCEpi  ajj.apTioiy  axs-      XpiTTo?  a-sD'avsv  Ozsp  tcov  a[j,ap- 
O'avEv  [£7:a&'Ev]  -rtwv  Tjfxwv 

The  thought  and  phrasing  are  close,  but  too  common  to  base  any 
argument  upon  them.     Cf.  Rom.  5;  6,  8,  10,  11,  Heb.  9;  28,  etc. 


420  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(15)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  I  Cor.  15 ;  25 
uTiOTaYEVTwv    auTw    ayysXcov    xai      xai:apYY]V|]  Tzaaav  ocpyjiv  xai  Ttacrav 

The  agreement  is  obvious,  but  the  frequency  with  which  this  thought 
occurs  in  the  Pauhne  Literature  makes  it  almost  implossible  to 
determine  which  Epistle  may  have  suggested  it  to  our  author.  The 
probabilities,  however,  are  in  favor  of  Romans  (8  ;  38)  and  Ephesians 
(1  ;  21,  22).     Cf.  also  Col.  2  ;  10,  1  ;  16. 

(16)  I  Pt.  4;  10a  I  Cor.  12;  5 
sxacTOC  xaQ-tbc  zkcc^z'j  yapiajxa          Btatpsffsi?  Btaxovicov  siti 

See  Rom.  12  ;  6  for  closer  parallel. 

I  Pt.  4 ;  10  b  I  Cor.  4  ;  1 

Thoroughly  Pauline  but  not  conclusive. 

(17)  I  Pt.  4;  12  I  Cor.  3;  18 

':ri  iv  u[j.Tv  ^upioTsi  TTpoc  7csipa(T[j.6v      sxaaTOu  to  epyov  b^oiov   stti   to 
'jjjlv  Yivopivri  xup  Boxtjxacet 

Paul  here  refers  to  the  testing  of  the  Judgment,  of  which  our 
author  thought  the  present  persecutions  were  the  immediate  precur- 
sors. Cf.  I  Pt.  4  ;  7.  Though  the  conditions  under  which  they 
wrote  were  very  different,  the  figure  used  by  Paul  would  be  picked 
up  most  appropriately  during  the  trying  ordeal. 

(18)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  I  Cor.  1 ;  9 

6  Bs  (^soc  T^aoT)?  Xapixoc,  6  xxA-  t.igzoc  6   ©eoc,    Bt,'    oo    £x}.7]8'Y]T£ 

zGocc,  6[JLa?  zlc  TYiv   aioivtov    auToD  elq    xoivoiviav      toQ     oloo     auToO 

Bo^av  sv  XpiaTo)  TyitoO  Xpio-ToU 

This  close  parallel  finds  similar  thought  in  I  Tim.  6  ;  12,  but  is 
quite  suggestive  of  dependence  here. 

(19)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  I  Cor.  4 ;  17 

Sia    —ikoucc'voij    6[jIv    tou    tcictou      l%e\K'\>cc  upv   Tt[;.6&'£0v  .  .  .  tcicttov 
aSeAooti  .  .  ,  sypa^a  sv  Kupwo 

(20)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  I  Cor.  15 ;  1 

/apiv  Tou  ©SOU"  dc  TjV  ct-^te  to  eiayysliov  .  .  .  ^)  e(7T7]xaT£ 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  421 

(21)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  I  Cor.  16 ;  19 
'AT-a^ETai,  'jixa?  yj  .  .  .                          aT-a^CovTai  Oij.a;  at  £ywx},Yi(7iai  .  . . 

(22)  I  Pt.  5;  14  I  Cor.  16;  20 
'A'77ra'7a(jO£  aX}.Yi'loDC  Iv  cpO.r'ij.a-ri      aT-ao-aTQc  a},7,T^7>o'j;  sv  oO.r/j.aTi 

The  last  four  parallels  may  be  duplicated  in  most  any  of  the  Pau- 
line Epistles. 

The  foregoing  studj^  shows  the  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  exact 
relationship  between  these  two  Epistles.  The  combined  evidence 
of  a  score  or  more  of  possible  points  of  contact,  and  especially  of 
those  classed  "  c — d  ",  make  dependence  somewhat  probable.  No 
one  instance  requires  this  conclusion,  nor  do  they  all  necessarily 
prove  it  since  much  of  the  thought  is  to  be  duplicated  in  Romans 
and  Ephesians,  with  which  dependence  is  far  more  probable.  Hence 
we  can  do  no  more  than  assign  to  I  Corinthians  a  low  degree  of 
probability. 

II  CORINTHIANS 
C— D 

c— <i 

(1)  I  Pt.  2;  22  II  Cor.  5;  21 

6;  a[j.apTiav  oux  ZTZoir^aty  -6v  [xv]  yvovToc  ajj-apTiav 

The  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ  is  common.  See  Jn. 
8  ;  34,  46,  Heb.  4  ;  15,  I  Jn.  3  ;  4,  8.  Since  II  Corinthians  antedates 
them  aU,  none  can  surpass  its  claim  to  originality,  yet  all  may  dra\s- 
from  Isa.  53. 

(2)  I  Pt.  4;  5  II  Cor.  5;  10 

-rw   sToCij.oK   xpivovTt    ^covTx:    xal      to-jc  yap  TravTa?  Yjtxa?  oavspfoOr,- 
v£xpotJ<;  .  .  vai    BsT   £[j.7:po<j[)-£v    tol!    [ir^ij.aTo; 

Tou  Xpi(j';rot> 

This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  the  possible  relation 
of  4  ;  1  to  II  Cor.  5  ;  15.  Yet  the  doctrine  is  common.  Cf.  Acts 
17  ;  31,  Rom.  4  ;  10,  12  ;  1,  I  Cor.  15  ;  51,  52,  Jas.  5  ;  9,  Acts  10 ;  42 
and  II  Tim.  4  ;  1,  the  last  two  of  which  are  closer  to  I  Pt.  4  ;  5  than 
to  II  Cor.  5  ;  10. 


422  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  5 ;  3  II  Cor.  1 ;  24 

[X7)B'  OK  xaTax'jpisuovTsc  Tcov  yXr\-      ouy  oti  xupi£UO[j.sv  6[j.cov  tv]?  xic- 

II  Cor.  1  ;  24  is  a  closer  parallel  to  5  ;  3  than  is  to  be  found  else- 
where in  the  N.  T.  Dependence  is  somewhat  probable,  though  not 
certain  since  the  context  is  neutral. 

d 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  II  Cor.  1 ;  3 

K?)'koyy]'zb(;  6  ©so?  xai  TraTrvjp  tgO      Ko'koyri'cb(;  6  QtoQ  xal  7:a-bY]p  tolJ 
Kupiou  7]p.(ov  'IyjctoO  XpidTToO  Kupiou  7][j,wv  'Iyj<7C/u  XpiaxoO 

Holtzmann  calls  attention  to  this  parallel  (Einl.  p.  314),  but  as 
we  have  seen  the  dependence  is  much  more  likely  upon  Eph.  1  ;  3. 
See  discussion  on  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  ^  Eph.  1  ;  3. 

(5)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  II  Cor.  1 ;  3 

0  xaira  to  %o\ii  auToO  iXzo^  6   TraTYjp  twv  olxTip[j.o)V 
Again  the  thought  is  not  as  close  as  in  Ephesians. 

(6)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8  II  Cor.  5 ;  7 

zl(;  6v  ap-Ti  |xy]  6pwv'ir£(;  mcTsuovTs?      Bia  mairscoc  yap   Tispt-aToujjLsv  0!> 

Bia  siBo'j? 

This  thought  is  too  common  and  the  context  too  different  to  claim 
dependence.     Cf.  Jn.  20  ;  29,  Rom.  8  ;  24,  25,  I  Cor.  13  ;  12,  Heb. 

1  ;  1,  27,  I  Jn.  4  ;  20. 

(7)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  II  Cor.  6 ;  6 

(pi>.aBs}.(piav  avLiTCOxptxov  aya^r)  avuTTOxpiTco 

Although  there  is  a  parallel  in  I  Pt.  2  ;  4  and  II  Cor.  6  ;  16,  there 
is  nothing  to  indicate  dependence  at  this  point.  Cf.  discussions  on 
I  Pt.  1  ;  2  =  Eph.  1  ;  20  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  =  I  Cor.  3  ;  16. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  II  Cor.  12 ;  20 
xKTaXaXia                                              xaTa};a>.ia 

This  word  occurs  only  in  these  two  places  in  all  the  N.  T.,  yet  the 
context  is  not  such  as  to  lead  one  to  infer  dependence  at  this  point. 

(9)  I  Pt.  4;  10  II  Cor.  10;  13 

exacToc  xaO-wc  zXa^z^  y_api(j[j.a  xa^a   to    [j-STpov   toO   y.cc'^o'^oc   o5 

£[j.£ptcr£v  Y^pv  6  (-)z6c, 

Our  Epistle  finds  a  closer  parallel  at  this  point  in  Rom.  12  ;  6, 
I  Cor.  12  ;  4,  5  and  Eph.  4  ;  7. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  423 

(10)  I  Pt.  4;  11  It  Cor.  9;  10 

The  usage  of  this  word,  which  occurs  only  here  in  the  N.  T.,  seems 
to  be  independent. 

(11)  I  Pt.  4  ;  13  II  Cor.  1  ;  7 

TraOrjij.ao'iv     ycdpt'zz  .   .  .     /aprjTs      Toiv,  outw   xal   tt,?   TuapaxXTjO'so); 

The  tliought  is  the  same,  yet  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18  more  probabty  sug- 
gested this  to  our  author. 

(12)  I  Pt.  4 ;  14  II  Cor.  12  ;  10 

si  byzihiZzab'Z  sv  ovojxaT!,  XptcTTOtJ,  suSoxw  ev  aaO-svsiatc  .  .  .  6~£p 
[xaxapioi  XpiaToti 

The  phrase  sv  ovojxaTi  XpKTTOu  occurs  now  here  else  in  the  N.  T. 
Persecution  caused  by  confessing  the  name  of  Christ  is  specific. 
The  passage  in  I  Corinthians  shows  Paul's  willingness  to  pay  the 
price,  that  he  might  be  "  strong  in  Christ."  The  evidence  for  depen- 
dence here  is  slight. 

(13)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  II  Cor.  4 ;  17 

6  xalsaa?  b^oic,  dc,  ty]v  aioiviov  to  TcapauTixa  £>.a(ppov  tyj;  QOi'iiso); 
a^ToO  Bo^av  sv  Xptcnrto  oliyov  Yjp.(ov  xaO-'  67C£p[jolY]v  £?c  uTwsp- 
7ca8>6vTac  wjxoc,  xaTap-cCcrsi  .  .  .  [3oXyiv  aicovtov  [Bapoi;  Bo^y)?  xaTsp- 

Ya^£'X'ai  v]|jIv 

The  joyful  optimism  during  suffering  is  noticeable  in  both  cases. 
Paul  was  an  "  apostle  of  hope  "  quite  as  much  as  our  author,  and  no 
doubt  was  a  great  inspiration  to  him.  Dependence  however  can  not 
be  asserted  here. 

The  concluding  greeting  (I  Pt.  5  ;  13  =  II  Cor.  13  ;  13  and  I  Pt.  5  ; 
14  =  II  Cor.  13  ;  12)  has  no  more  to  commend  it  here  than  in  the 
other  Pauline  Epistles. 

The  possible  points  of  contact  between  these  two  Epistles  are  not 
such  as  to  warrant  any  confidence  in  the  probability  of  dependence. 
What  may  be  termed  real  evidence  is  limited  to  the  parallels  classed 
"  c — d  ".  Even  these  do  not  show  more  than  a  low  degree  of  pro- 
bability. 


424  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

HOMANS 
A* 

a*^ — b 

(1)  I  Pt.  I ;  20  Eom.  16 ;  25 

xpo£YV(OG-[j.£vo!j  [J.SV  xpo  xaTajjo).'?]'?  xaTcic  a;upoxa>.utj>tv  [j.u(7T7]piou  /^p6- 
x6o"[j.o'j,  'pavspcoQ'svTOi;  Bs  Itc  s^j/^oc-      voi?  aitovtoic  0"£(ji,YYHi.£votj,  cpavspw- 

TOU    T(OV    ypOVCOV  O'EVTOC    B£    vuv 

The  significance  of  this  parallel  has  been  noted  by  many  scholars. 
Professor  Sanday  (Com.  on  Rom.  p.  434)  makes  the  following  comment 
on  the  passage  in  Romans  ;  "  This  is  the  thought  which  underlies 
much  of  the  argument  of  chapters  9—11,  and  is  directly  implied  in 
the  first  eight  chapters.  It  represents  in  fact  the  conclusion  which 
the  Apostle  had  arrived  at  in  musing  over  the  difficulties  which  the 
problems  of  human  history,  as  he  knew  them,  had  suggested.     God 

is  working  out  a  purpose  in  the  world.    For  ages  it  was  a  mystery, 

now  in  these  last  days  it  has  been  revealed  ;  and  this  revelation  ex- 
plains the  meaning  of  God's  working  in  the  past."  That  I  Peter  here 
alludes  to  the  Pauline  idea  of  the  p<7rr^p!,ov  is  very  probable.  It  is  wholly 
in  accord  with  the  non-speculative  nature  of  the  author,  as  well  as 
in  harmony  with  his  characteristic  trait  of  expressing  in  a  simple 
phrase  or  clause  the  equivalent  of  the  more  elaborate  reasoning  of 
Paul.  This  brevity  has  led  B.  Weiss  to  advocate  the  dependence 
of  Paul.  Yet  Professor  Sanday  follows  the  general  consensus  of 
scholastic  opinion  in  contending  for  the  originality  of  Paul.  That 
the  above  reference  occurs  in  connection  with  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  the  preexistence  of  Christ  is  very  important  to  note. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  6  Eom.  9 ;  33 

(3)  ■  I  Pt.  2;  6b  Rom.  9;  33b 

6   7:tG'T£'J(ov    It:    auToi    oh    [xyj   xa-      6    7:i,g"~£'J(ov    It:    auTw    oh    xaira- 

(4)  I  Pt.  2  ;  8  Eom.  9  ;  33  a 

Ti^oc,  'K^OG%6]}j^rx':oc  xai  TisTpa  Xib-ov  7:poax6p.p.aTO?  xai  7C£i:pav 
(TxavBalou  (T/.<x'/hy.\ou 

The  very  important  place  these  three  parallels  have  in  the  problem 
of  literar3^  relation,  necessitates  quite  extensive  comment.  Bigg 
says  "  It  is  unnecessary  to  suppose  that  St.  Peter's  version  of  Isaiah 
is  derived  from  St.  Paul."  (I.  C.  C.  p.  132.)     B.  Weiss  after  arguing 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  425 

that  there  is  here  a  literary  dependence  says  "  Es  ist  nun  aber  auch 
in  dieser  Stelle  vollig  unmoglich,  daB  die  Abhangigkeit  auf  Seiten  des 
Petrus  sein  kann."  (Der  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff.  p.  422)  Against 
this  almost  isolated  example  is  to  be  given  the  general  consensus 
of  scholastic  opinion.  Furthermore  Weiss  does  not  seem  to  have 
met  Briickner's  argument.  Monnier  says  :  "  la  dependance  de  I  Pt. 
2  ;  6  et  8  par  rapport  a  Rom.  9  ;  33  est  evidente."  (Com.  p.  38.) 
H.  M.  Holtzmann,  (Einl.  p.  314,)  gives  the  following  line  of  reasoning  ; 
"  Am  wenigsten  aber  ist  nur  Zufall  dabei  im  Spiele,  wenn  Jes.  28  ;  16 
und  8  ;  14,  letztere  Stelle  verschmolzen  mit  Ps.  118 ;  22,  I.  Pt.  2  ; 
6—8,  ganz  ahnhch  wie  Rom.  9  ;  33  (Jes.  28  ;  16  mit  Jes.  8  ;  14  ver- 
bunden,  vgl.  auch  I.  Pt.  2  ;  8  Trpo-TxoxTeiv  wie  Rom.  9  ;  32  und 
paulinischer  Determinismus  wie  Rom.  9  ;  14  f.  und  unmittelbar 
darauf  10.  Hos.  2  ;  25  ganz  in  demselben  Sinne,  um  den  Unterschied 
des  ehemaligen  heidnischen  und  des  gegenwartigen  christlichen  Zu- 
standes  hervorzuheben,  angefiihrt  wird,  wie  Rom.  9  ;  25  eine  solche 
Benutzung  Bestatigung  findet.)  Gerade  wie  Pis.,  Rom.  9  ;  33,  10  ; 
11  thut,  ist  der  Spruch  Jes.  28;  16  mit  einem  zu  ::i(7T£'j(ov  hinzu- 
tretenden  1%  auTSi  aus  Jes.  8  ;  14  ausgestattet ;  auch  der  beider- 
seitige  Eingang  des  Spruches  stimmt  gegen  LXX  iiberein." 

Zahn  (Introduction  II  p.  188)  gives  the  following  against  Weiss  : 
"  That  Rom.  9  ;  32  f.  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  still  more  2  ;  4-8  were  not 
written  independently  of  each  other  is  proved  (1)  by  the  fact  that 
both  apostles  in  quoting  Isa.  28  ;  16  are  practically  agreed  against 
the  strongly  variant  reading  of  the  LXX  ;  even  the  addition  s-"* 
a^Tw  (Rom.  9  ;  33,  10  ;  11,  I  Pt.  2  ;  6)  is  certainly  spurious  in  the 
LXX  ;  (2)  from  the  fact  that  after  the  quotation  of  Isa.  28  ;  16, 
following  a  quotation  from  Ps.  118;  22,  in  I  Pt.  2;  7f.  are  added 
the  words  XiQ^oc  xpoT/.oiJ.ij.aToc  xal  Tzsirpoc  crxavBa}.ou,  which  are  taken 
from  Isa.  8  ;  14,  but  vary  greatly  from  the  text  of  the  LXX,  and 
which  Paul  inserts  in  the  quotation  of  Isa.  28 ;  16.  Here  also 
Peter  does  not  copy  Rom.  ;  he  is  familiar  with  the  prophetic  text 
from  his  own  reading,  since  in  2  ;  6  he  gives  the  characteristics  of 
the  stone, — as  also  earlier  in  2  ;  3, — passed  over  by  Paul.  But  there 
remains  in  his  memory  also  the  form  in  which  Paul  had  quoted 
the  words  of  the  prophet,  and,  following  the  cue  suggested  by 
Paul's  combination  of  Isa.  28 ;  16  and  Isa.  8  ;  14  he  also  adds 
Ps.  118;  22." 

To  Professor  Sanday  we  are  indebted  for  the  following  important 
observations  on  the  variations  ;  (1)  The  LXX  reads  iBou  syw  sij-paA- 
Xb)  zlc,  TOC  %-t]j.zkiy.  Ztcov.  In  both  the  passages  in  the  N.  T.  the 
words  are  ihob  ■^ih-r^n  h  Itwv.      (2)  For   the  LXX   }iD"Ov    izoXij-zy-t^ 


426  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

Ix7.sxt6v  axpoycoviaTov  Ivtiij-ov,  St.  Peter  reads  axpoycoviotov  sxIsxtov 
£VTt[JLOv  ;  while  St.  Paul  substitutes  7.iQ"0v  7icpoax6[j.[j.aToc  xai  TOirpav 
oxavBaXou  taken  from  Isa.  8  ;  14  xal  ou/^  w?  XiQ-ov  7;po(7x6[j.[j.aTi  cu- 
vavTYjO'scrS-s  ouBs  ojc  Tus'i-pa?  x'ocofj.airt.  Here  St.  Peter  2  ;  8  agrees 
with  St.  Paul  in  writing  xsTpa  crxavBaXou  for  7:£Tpa?7rTw[j.aTi.  (3)  The 
LXX  proceeds  dq  toc  &-£[j.£Xia  au-YJ?,  which  both  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  omit.  (4)  The  LXX  proceeds  xai  6  TTicrirsucov  ou  [j.y]  xaira- 
lo-pvQ"^.  Both  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  bring  out  the  personal  re- 
ference by  inserting  It;  auTw  while  St.  Paul  reads  xaTaiG-zuvQ-r'TeTa!. 
and  in  10;  11  adds  tm^."  (I.  C.  C.  p  280  f.)  Cf.  also  Hilgenfeld's 
Einleitung  p.  633  f. 

We  may  note  in  this  connection  that  in  the  "  Petrine  "  speech 
of  Acts  4  ;  11,  reference  is  made  to  Ps.  118  ;  22  and  not  to  Isa. 
28  ;  16.  I  Pt.  2  ;  6b  =  Isa.  28  ;  16,  2  ;  7b  =  Ps.  118  ;  22  and 
2  ;  8a  =  Isa.  8  ;  14.  Rom.  9  ;  33  combines  I  Pt.  2  ;  6a,  8a,  and 
6b  into  one  short  sentence,  i.  e.,  Isa.  28  ;  16b,  8  ;  14  and  28  ;  16c, 
omitting  I  Pt.  2  ;  7  b,  the  quotation  from  Ps.  118  ;  22  which  is  given 
in  "  Peter's  speech  "  in  Acts  4  ;  11. 

That  there  is  literary  dependence  here  scholars  agree,  and  that 
the  dependence  is  on  the  part  of  our  author  they  are  nearty  all 
quite  as  ready  to  admit.  Only  B.  Weiss  and  his  pupil  Kiihl  resist 
this  conclusion.  It  seems  fair  therefore  to  say  the  arguments  pre- 
sented above  by  representative  scholars  prove  the  originality  of 
Paul,  who  had  thoroughly  worked  over  these  ideas  and  put  them 
in  compact  form,  while  our  author  apparently  was  contented  in  his 
"  practical  treatise  "  to  sort  out  and  string  together  the  scriptural 
pearls  discovered  by  Paul.  (For  counter  arguments  see  "  Der 
Petrinische  Lehrbegriff  "  by  B.  \\^eiss,  p.  421  f.) 

(5)  I  Pt.  4;  10  Rom.  12;  6 

IxaTTO?  xa8-w;  sla^isv  yapicjxa,  lyovzzc,  Vz  /api'j[j-a'7a  xaToc  ty)v 
£??  £3cuT0tJC  a'jTo  BiaxovoUvTo?  .  .  .      /ccpiv  TTjV  SoucTo-av  Tjij.Tv  Biacpopa .  . 

Jiilicher  (Int.  p.  209)  agrees  with  Cone  (Com.  p.  319)  "  that  the 
dependence  of  the  writer  on  the  Pauline  passage  is  evident  "  in 
this  and  the  following  parallels.  The  Pauline  thought  is  expressed 
in  Pauline  terms.     Cf.  also  I  Cor.  12  ;  4,  28. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4  ;  11  Kom.  12 ;  7 

£1  Tii;  BiaxovcT,    w;   i%    iG/yjc,  f^c,      £ix£  Btaxoviav,  sv  'zr^  Btaxovia 
yopfiyti  6  ©so? 

This  citation  in  I  Peter  continues  the  thought  of  Paul  in  the 
same  order,  noted  in  the  preceding  parallel. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  427 

(7)  I  Pt.  4  ;  13  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18 

xaO-o  xoiv(<)V£Tt£  toT?  too  Xpwroti  £i7:£p  (7U[j.7:a«7/^0[j.£v,  I'va  xa\  t'jv- 
xaS''^[xacnv  yjxiptzz,  hoc  xai  Iv  tyj  ^io^aTB-oiixsv.  8;  18  otjx  acta  Ta 
x%oy,ixlu'l)Zi  Trj?  Bo^TjC  auToti  xapr,-  t.'x\J%[x'xt%  too  vOv  xaipoO  7:po$  tt;/ 
-:£  aYa}J.ico[j.£vot.     Cf.  5  ;  1.  [jiW^ouaav    Bocav    aTuoxaXu^^O-Yivai 

£?£  "/;[J.ac 

(8)  1  Pt.  5  ;  1  Rom.  8 ;  17,  19 
[j.apTU?    Tcov   TOL>    Xpi-TTOu    7:aOT|-  £i7;£p    o-Ufj-xacr/opLEv,    iva    xai    t'jv- 
[j.dcTcov,  6  xai  -zriz  \).0(Xko6Tr,c  a-o-  Bo'^aiS-wjj.sv  .  .  .  (19)  tTjV  ij.e}.Xo'j- 
xaT-UTC-saO-ai  Bo^-r)?  xoivtovoi;  lav  Bo'^av  aTCoxalucpO-rjvat  £i$  Yjjxac 

These  last  two  parallels  belong  together.  Weiss  (Lehrbegriff 
p.  423)  thinks  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  Paul's  dependence  upon 
I  Peter.  Chase  (H.  B.  D.,  III.  p.  788)  on  the  other  hand  thinks 
the  dependence  of  I  Peter  is  obvious.  Practically  all  scholars 
are  agreed  that  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  dependence.  The  pri- 
ority must  be  given  to  Paul,  as  will  appear  later. 

b 

(9)  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  Rom.  12 ;  2 

[JLY]  (7uvo'/_Y]p.aTi^6[j.£voi  TaT?  TipoTEpov  [jiYj  c-'jvc/jjij.aTi^EG-B'E  ~oi  aioivt 
£V  T7]  ocYvoia  6[j.o)v  £7;t,u'U[jiai;  toutw 

I]uv<7)(Y][j.aTi^op.at,  is  found  only  in  these  two  passages  in  all  the 
N.  T.  Nor  is  the  word  used  by  the  LXX.  Our  Epistle  has  an 
amplification  of  the  simpler  form  found  in  Romans.  This  parallel 
receives  added  significance  when  placed  alongside  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  = 
Rom.  12  ;  1.      Cf.  H.  J.  Holtzmann's  Einleitung  p.  314. 

(10)  I  Pt.  1  ;  15  Rom.  12  ;  2 

(xXkoc  ....  auTOi    ocyioi    Iv    -ao-r,      ocWoc  [xEirajJiopcpotio'D-E  ty]  avaxaivto- 

avacrirpocp"^  YevtjQ^yjte  tyzi  Toti  vob^ 

The  antithesis  here  is  an  important  parallel  construction,  while 
the  thought  is  equally  striking.  This  and  the  foregoing  example 
make  a  strong  case  for  dependence. 

(11)  I  Pt.  1;  17  Rom.  2;  11,  G 

Tov  a7:poG"0):to}srj[j.7:Toj5  xpivovra  oo  ydrj  srr'i  7:po<7W7ro}.Y]']>ta  7:apa 
xa^a  TO  sxaTTOu  spyov  tw  (-^sw  2  ;  6  6c  aTCoBoi^Et  fxaTTO) 

xaTa  -y.  Ipya  a'jTo3 

This  is  a  common  N.  T.  parallel,  but  it  is  closer  here  than  in 
James  2  ;  1  or  Acts  10  ;  34.     Our  Epistle  clearly  refers  to  God's 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  29  January,  1913. 


428  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

impartiality  in  the  judgment  in  harmony  with  Rom.  2  ;  11.  Cf. 
also  2  ;  6.  A  similar  sentiment  is  expressed  in  Eph.  6  ;  9,  and 
Col.  3  ;  25.  That  this  is  a  closer  parallel  than  in  the  "  speech  of 
Peter  "  is  very  significant.^ — We  have  seen  another  probable  point 
of  contact  in  this  context  of  Romans,  (i.  e.,  IPt.  1  ;  7  =  Rom.  2  ;  10,) 
thereby  justifying  us  in  putting  this  parallel  in  class  "  b  ". 


(12)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Eom.  4 ;  24 

sysipavTa  auTov  sx  vsxpcov  ^Iriaow  tov  Kupiov  y][j.(ov  ex  vsxpwv 

That  God  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  was  a  common  beUef, 
but  that  He  did  it  to  beget  belief  in  Himself,  hence  be  efficacious 
for  salvation,  is  peculiar  to  these  authors.  Monnier  says  "  La 
resurrection  de  J.  C.  est  constamment  rapportee  a  un  acte  de  Dieu, 
a  qui  revient,  en  derniere  analyse,  la  premiere  initiative  et  la  puis- 
sance supreme  dans  I'oeuvre  de  salut  .  .  ."  Both  the  thought 
and  phrasing  are  very  close. 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  Rom.  12 ;  9,  10 

Toc?  '\>^'loi.c,  b[Xi~)v  YjyvixoTS?   sv    TY]  Y]     ayaTCY)     avuTuoxpiToc.     dcTioaTu- 

uTcaxo^  TYJ?  aXr|0-£ia?  dc  (^iXoiZt}.-  yoOvTec    to    TtOVYjpov,    Y,o\'ko>[s.ev'Ji 

oiccv  avj-oxpiTOv    sx   xapBia?    aX-  Toi  ayaS-w,  ty,  cptXaBslcpia  zh  a).- 

T^TjXouc  ayazTj(7(XT£  sxirsvw^.  'kr\'koij^  oiAoaTopyo!, 

This  parallel  is  too  close  to  require  comment.  Jas.  4  ;  8  approxi- 
mates it  but  is  not  nearly  so  close.  Furthermore  the  evidence 
seems  to  indicate  that  "  James  "  is  later  than  either  of  the  above 
passages. 

(14)  I  Pt.  2;  11  Rom.  7;  23 

d^ziyzab-xi  twv  Tapxixwv  £;:i9-l»[j.uov      (J)i7:co  STspov   v6[j.ov    sv  -zoic  [xil- 

aiTivsc     o-TpaTS'JovTai    xaxa     t-^c      zgi  \).w  avTiTTpaTsuop-svov  tw  v6[j.o) 
^}>u/%  -zou  \/o6c  [j.ou 

An  obvious  parallel  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Tscp^  which 
"  wars  "  against  the  7rveO[j.a.  Monnier  (Com.  p.  110)  says:  "Eph.  2  ; 
3  est  imite  ici  ",  but  in  reality  there  is  here  a  combination  of 
Rom.  7  ;  23  and  Eph.  2  ;  3  in  one  sentence.  The  passage  in  Ephe- 
sians  fails  to  emphasise  the  "  internal  warfare  "  as  do  these  passages. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  429 

(15)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Rom.  12 ;  20,  21 

sv  (0  'A.at.-cKXoCkmGU  6p.(ov  wc  xaxo-  ^av  Tceiva  6  t/p-poi;  (70U,  'jioi^ti^s 
TTOUov,  ex  Twv  xalwv  spytov  ettox-  auTOV  £av  Bi'jia,  tcoti^s  aa^ov 
TEUovTec  Bo^ao-fo'j!,  Tov  (-)eov  £v  TotJTO  yap  Tuoiwv  avO'paxac  Tiupo? 
YjjjLepa  £;:i'7X07:'^?  Tcopsuastc  ItcI  tt;/  xscpaXYjv  auToO. 

[XY]    viX(o    6x6    Tou    xaxoy,    a};Xa 
vixa  £v  T(o  ayaO'co  to  xaxov 

Holtzmann  calls  attention  to  this  parallel.  Though  the  back- 
ground is  different  the  thought  is  similar  and  the  gap  is  filled  which 
would  have  been  left  open  by  v.  12.  The  importance  of  the  position 
of  this  parallel,  it  is  thought,  justifies  this  classification. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2;  13  Rom.  13;  1 

•jTCOTayriTS  izda-fi  avQ-pwmvY)  XTiaet  xaca  'jiu/Yj  ISouaiatc,  b-KzpzyouaiMQ 
Bia  TOV  Kuptov  SITS  (SaatlsT  .  .  .  67COTa(7'7£(jQ-o)*  .  . .  cd  oZaai  I'loixjicci 
SITS  ■/]ys[x6<nv  6x6  tou  f)so3  TSTayixsvai  siciv 

Concerning  the  extended  parallel  between  I  Pt.  2  ;  13—17  and 
Rom.  13  ;  1—7,  Zahn  says  :  "  The  sense  is  not  only  the  same,  but 
several  expressions  are  alike,  e.g.,  the  aim  for  which  civil  authorities 
exist  is  described."  (Int.  II,  p.  187.)  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  14  and  Rom. 
13  ;  3  f .  Many  commentators  have  discussed  these  parallels  and 
are  agreed  in  the  main.  Bigg  rightly  calls  attention  to  the  different 
backgrounds  of  the  authors  (I.C.C.  p.  139).  "  Paul  speaks  of 
Caesar  as  holding  his  authority  from  god,  not  from  the  people. 
Rom.  13  ;  1.  A  doctrine  of  divine  right  could  be  built  upon  the 
words  of  Paul,  but  not  upon  those  of  Peter."  To  this  most  will 
agree,  but  many  will  not  accept  his  conclusion,  that  "  Peter's  "  atti- 
tude is  due  to  his  priority  to  Paul ;  i.  e.,  that  he  viewed  the  govern- 
ment as  a  Republic,  while  Paul  viewed  it  as  a  Monarchy.  The 
reason  is  made  obvious  by  the  body  of  the  letter,  which  indicates 
a  shifting  attitude  of  the  State  towards  the  Church.  This  shifted 
attidude  quite  clearly  implies  priority  of  Paul. 

(17)  I  Pt.  2 ;  14  Rom.  13 ;  4 

Mc  Bt,'  atjToS  xs[j.7:o|;.£voic  sic  sx-  sxBixoc  zlc  6pyr,v  tw  t6  xaxov 
Bix'/jTiv  xaxoxouov  xpacaovTai 

The  paraDel  is  obvious,  but  the  situations  are  different.  Paul 
refers  to  social  disturbances  caused  by  evil  doing,  actual  crime, 
but  I  Peter  alludes  to  the  accusation  of  "  evil  doing,"  brought  on 
by  their  insubordination  to  the  state  religion  being  taken  in  "  a 


430  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

false  light."  Cf.  Holtzmann's  Com.  p.  137,  also  Gunkel,  Abschnitt 
3,  p.  43.  Regarding  this  and  its  relation  to  Romans  the  latter 
says  it  is  "  Ein  Zusatz,  begriindet  ganz  in  paulinischer  Weise." 

(18)  I  Pt.  2 ;  14  Rom.  13 ;  3 

sTcaivov  Bs  ayaS'OTCOioov  to  ayaO^ov  xoiet,  xai  'i^zic,  lizof-woy 

Dependence  may  quite  easily  be  inferred  here.  E^atvoc  is  only 
used  by  these  two  authors  in  all  the  N.  T.  Our  author  combines 
in  his  characteristic  fashion  the  adjective  and  the  verb.  Out  of  the 
sixty-one  words  peculiar  to  I  Peter  forty-one  are  compounds. 
With  this  tendency  of  his  in  mind  we  can  see  a  perfect  parallel  here. 
The  closeness  of  the  last  three  parallels,  both  in  thought  and  textual 
sequence  make  a  strong  case  for  dependence. 

(19)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  Rom.  6 ;  2,  11. 

tva    TaTc    ajj-apxtai?    a;coY£v6[JL£vot      oiiivzc,    aTcsS'avojj.sv    t^    ajxapTia, 

TT^    BlXaiOrjJVY)   ^Y]'7tO[X£V  TZUiC,     STl      ^Tr]'(70[J.eV      £V      aUITT].        11 

Toui;  vsxpou?  [;.£V  sTvai  t-^  ajxap^ia, 
^(ovTa?  Bs  Tw  0SW.     Cf.  6  ;    18. 

"  This  passage  implies  the  writer's  dependence  upon  the  PauUne 
thought  and  phraseology."  Cone  Com.  p.  312.  Cf.  Monnier  Com. 
p.  136.  The  figure  is  too  thoroughly  PauHne  for  us  to  say  with 
Bigg  that  "  the  Pauline  images  of  death  or  burial  with  Christ  do 
not  cross  the  author's  mind."  (I.C.C.  p.  148.) 

(20)  1  Pt.  3 ;  4  Rom.  2 ;  16 

6  xpUT^TOi;  T-^c   xapBCa;    avO-pcozo?      cChX    6    sv   too   xpuTTTw  TouBaToi;, 
•  xai  x£ptTO[XYi  xapBtac  Iv  7iV£'J[j.aTi. 

Cf.  Rom.  7  ;  22  and  II  Cor.  4  ;  16. 

An  exact  parallel  to  Paul's  "  inward  man."  Cf.  Rom.  7  ;  22. 
Combining  this  parallel  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  11  =  Rom.  7  ;  23,  they  both 
receive  added  significance. 

(21)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Rom.  12 ;  16 

TO  Be  'zzkoc^  7cavT£?  6ij.6'^pov£(;  to  auTO  dc,  oOO^rikoi^c,   cppovouvTEC 

15  ;  5,  BcoY)  b^xv  to  auTO    cppov£Tv 
£v  oCiCkr^Xoic, 

(22)  I.  Pt.  3 ;  8  Rom.  12 ;  5 
(7'j[X7:aQ'£Ti;                                               /o'^pE'-^    [J-stoc     yaipovTwv,     x'XaiEv 


oTOC    xlaiOVTWV 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  431 

(23)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Rom.  12 ;  10 

'^opyoi 

(24)  I  Pt.  3;  8  Rom.  12;  IG 

TaxsivoT^  0"tjva7iaY6ij.£V0!, 

(25)  I  Pt.  3;  8  Rom.  12;  13 
zuG-Kkxy/yoi                                           ■zcac    y^ticac   t(ov    ayuov   xoivwvo- 

Following  the  canon  of  brevity  we  should  be  required  to  cast 
our  vote  in  favor  of  the  originality  of  I  Peter  at  this  point  in  accord 
with  the  contention  of  Weiss,  but  other  considerations  lead  us  to 
believe  our  author  summed  up  the  exhortation  of  Rom.  12  ;  5—16 
into  one  sentence,  i.  e.  3  ;  8.  The  last  five  parallels  afford  a  con- 
spicuous example  of  expressing  the  content  of  Pauline  phrases  by 
single  compound  words.  This  is  especially  obvious  in  the  next  to 
the  last  parallel,  where  two  words  already  used  by  St.  Paul  are 
combined.  Separately  these  parallels  do  not  merit  such  a  high 
rating,  yet  when  taken  together  they  may  well  be  placed  in  class  "  b  ". 

(26)  I  Pt.  3;  9  Rom.  12;  17 

\xri  ocTToBiBovTSC  :iax6v  avTi  xaxou      [r/^Bsvl   xaxov    av-i   xaxou    octtoBi- 

Prov.  20  ;  22  ([xr]  zizr^t;  -i<J0i).cci  tov  £/0>p6v)  can  hardly  be  the  ori- 
ginal for  these  two  passages  as  some  contend.  Nor  is  it  probable 
they  were  quoting  independently  a  logion  of  Jesus.  Cf.  Mt.  5  ;  39, 
and  Lk.  6  ;  29,  which  have  very  different  forms.  The  probabilities 
are  therefore  that  one  is  quoting  the  phrase  from  the  other.  Paul 
uses  it  also  in  another  connection.  I  Thes.  5  ;  15.  See  Zahn's 
Introduction  II,  p.  187. 

(27)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  b  Rom.  12 ;  14 

r\    };OtBopiav    av-i    7vOiBop{a?    tou-      zuloytX-zz     ~obc    B^oxovrac    5|xac 
vavTiov  B£  suT-oyouvTEC  £u)^oy£Tt£,  xa\  [xy]  xaTapacrQ-s 

This  parallel  is  strengthened  also  by  I  Pt.  2  ;  15.  The  context 
as  well  as  the  wording  makes  dependence  very  probable. 


'432  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(28)  I  Pt.  3 ;  11  Rom.  12 ;  18,  14  ;  19 

a^'TO'^  T£?.     14  ;  19  toc  ty]?  sipr^Y]?  Bto)- 

XC()[JL£V 

The  thought,  phrasing  and  context  are  very  suggestive  of  Hterary 
dependence. 

(29)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Rom.  5 ;  6,  8 

XpKTTo?   ocTca^  xspl    djxapTiojv    a-      XpwTO?  .  .  .  6xsp  a«7£|3cov  axsO-avs, 
TisO-avsv.   [sTiaO'Sv]  W.  H.  5  ;  8  Xpw^o?  u^p  \sxZy  a;:£0-av£ 

W.  H.  prefer  aTOO-av£v  to  £xa8-£v,  on  the  authority  of  xAC  and 
all  the  versions.  This  rendering  makes  a  very  close  parallel  with 
Romans,  yet  the  thought  would  not  be  materially  altered  by  ccizi- 
0>av£,  which  has  in  its  favor  BKLP. 

(30)  IPt.  3;18  Rom.  5;  7 

Sixaio?  UTOp  aSixwv  \xokic,  yap  UTCp  Btxaio-j  zic  a^O-av- 

An  important  parallel  as  Rom.  5  ;  7  connects  vs.  6  and  8  given 
in  the  example  I  Pt.  3  ;  18  =  Rom.  5  ;  6,  8.  Rom.  5  ;  9  is  also  in 
accord  with  the  Petrine  doctrine. 


(31)  I  Pt  3;  18  Rom.  5;  10 

Iva  6[j.a?  7;poaaYaYY)  tw  (-)£co  xair/jD^ayYipv    tw    (^£o)    5d    toS 

O-avdcTou  To3  -jio^i  auToti.    Cf.  5  ;  2. 

This  parallel  is  obvious.  Jiilicher  thinks  the  agreement  is  closer 
with  Rom.  5;  2.  (Bi'  r/j  xai  tyjv  Tipoo-ayoiyviv  ET/rjywajjxv)  "Intro- 
duction "  p.  209.  This  appears  to  be  another  example  of  con- 
densing. What  was  done  elsewhere  in  words  is  here  done  in  phrases 
and  clauses,  as  3  ;  18  seems  to  be  an  abstract  of  Rom.  5  ;  2 — 10. 
Tlie  combined  evidence  of  the  last  three  parallels  in  direct  contextual 
sequence  makes  dependence  here  very  probable. 

(32)  IPt.  3;  22  Rom.  8;. 34 

OC,    £G-7tV    EV    B£2ta    0£OO     TwOpSuS-El?        £y£p8-£l$,      O;     ET-IV     Iv     Be^iS     T0!J 

dc,  otjpavov  .  .  .  (^£0/0 


This  parallel  is  too  close  to  require  comment. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  433 

(33)  1  Pt.  3 ;  22  b  Rom.  8 ;  88 

Christ's  leadership  over  angels,  authorities  and  powers  is  distinctly 
a  Pauhne  teaching.  Bigg  thinks  the  reference  to  Noah  in  I  Pt.  3  ; 
20  is  a  proof  that  our  author  was  not  borrowing  from  Paul  but 
from  Enoch  61  ;  10,  "  since  the  passage  comes  just  before  one  of 
the  Noachic  fragments."  (Com.  p.  166.)  Enoch  61  ;  10  reads  as 
follows  ;  "  And  He  will  call  on  all  the  host  of  the  heavens  and  all 
the  holy  ones  above,  and  all  the  host  of  God,  the  Cherubim,  Seraphim, 
and  Ophanim,  and  all  the  angels  of  power,  and  all  the  angels  of 
principalities,  and  the  Elect  one,  and  the  other  powers  on  the  earth, 
over  the  water,  on  that  day."  Charles  says  "  the  other  persons 
on  the  earth,  over  the  water,  etc.,  refer  to  the  lower  angel-powers 
over  nature."  The  "  Noachic  fragment  "  therefore  seems  too  frag- 
mentary to  merit  attention.  On  the  other  hand  Charles  says  these 
(referring  to  Enoch  61  ;  10)  are  exactly  St.  Paul's  principalities 
and  powers.  Cf.  Rom.  8  ;  38,  Eph.  1  ;  21,  Col.  1  ;  16."  (Book  of 
Enoch  p.  162.)  Professor  Sanday  refers  to  the  same  passage  in 
Enoch  as  a  probable  source  of  Paul's  terminology.  Cf.  Com.  on 
Rom.  p.  222.  The  commonness  of  the  idea  with  Paul,  along  with 
the  variety  of  expression  argue  for  his  independence  of  I  Peter. 
In  addition  to  the  passages  cited  by  Charles  cf.  I  Cor.  15  ;  24,  Eph. 
3  ;  10,  6  ;  12,  Col.  2  ;  10,  15.  This  and  the  preceding  parallel  taken 
together  makes  the  dependence  of  our  author  upon  Paul  highly 
probable,  and  very  hkely  on  Romans. 


(34] 


I  Pt.  4 ;  1  Rom.  6 ;  7,  2 

6  7:a6'wv  crapxl  rsTrauTai  a[j.apTiaic      6  aTCoO-avcov  BsBixauoTai  ocr.b   -zr^c 

tx[j.ap-iac.     6  ~  2  oI'tivs?  axeO-avo- 

This  seems  to  be  a  very  probable  case  of  dependence  "  for  the 
thought  that  death  annuls  man's  relationship  to  sin,  which  is  only 
differently  expressed  in  the  two  instances  is  very  boldly  applied 
in  both  cases,  first  to  the  death  of  Christ  and  then  as  the  ground 
of  moral  obhgation  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  been  redeemed 
through  His  death.  Similar  relations  do  not  exist  between  I  Peter 
and  any  other  of  Paul's  letters."  (Zahn's  Intro.  II,  p.  188.)  Gal. 
3  ;  23  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  5,  quoted  by  Hilgenfeld,  (Einl.  p.  633),  agree 
oily  in  the  use  of  the  word  cppo-jpsTv.      B.  Weiss,   whose  judgment 


t34 


Ora  Delnier  Foster, 


here  regarding  the  connection  is  better  than  concerning  the  order 
of  dependence,  thinks  the  "  Pauhne  mysticism,  regarding  the  effi- 
cacy of  Christ's  sufferings,  is  borrowed  from  this  passage  in  I  Peter." 
("  Der  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff  "  p.  289.) 


(35)  I  Pt.  4;  7 

TuavTwv  TO  TsXoc  YJyytxsv 


Rom.  13;  11,  12 

vuv  sYyuTspov  y][jxov  y;  c-c.)TY]pia  .  . 

Y)    vu^    Tcposxocjjsv,     *J]    Bs    Yjfi-spa 
T^yyixev 


That  these  scriptures  are  followed  by  similar  exhortations  based 
upon  them  and  that  they  occur  in  such  close  contextual  connection 
with  I  Pt.  4  ;  3  =  Rom.  13  ;  13,  is  a  strong  argument  for  literary 
dependence.     Cf.  Weiss'  Lehrbegriff  p.  420. 


(36)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2 

xaToc  ::p6yvo)(7W  HsoD 


Ron.  8 ;  29,  11 ;  2,  1 ;  7 

o'js  Tiposyvto  11  ;  2,   tov  }.a6v  ,  . 
6v   ;cpo£yvco  1  ;  7   xapi?   6pv  xal 

SlpYjVY] 


np6yvo)(7tc  and  7rpoyt.voj(7xto  are  strictly  Pauline  and  Petrine 
terms.  The  former  is  found  only  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  and  Acts  2  ;  23. 
The  latter  in  Acts  26  ;  5,  Rom.  8  ;  29,  11  ;  2,  I  Pt.  1  ;  20,  II  Pt. 
3  ;  17.  Though  I  Peter  shows  a  more  extended  likeness  in  the 
fore  part  to  "Ephesians"  than  to  "Romans",  it  is  quite  probable 
that  our  author  was  influenced  just  at  this  point  by  the  latter, 
for  the  former  uses  Tupoopicac.  On  the  whole  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
"  The  salutation  of  I  Peter  is  formed  in  an  independent  manner 
after  the  model  which  had  been  created  by  St.  Paul,  especially  as 
it  appears  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans".  Hort's 
"  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,"  p.  13.  We  should  also  add  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians. 


(37)                       I  Pt.  1 ;  9  Rom.  6 ;  22 

xop^ojJLSVot  TO  'zzkoc  iriq  tcictsco^  syrsTs  Tov  xaprcov  6[j.(ov  dc,  aytaa- 

ffwTTQpiav  'jiuywv  [Jiov,    to    Bs    tsXoc    ^ojTjV    aioiviov 

Nowhere  is  this  thought  more  closely  duplicated. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  435 

(38)  I  Pt.  2 ;  4  Kom.  9 ;  33 

XiQ-ov    ^wvTa,    67:0    avO-ptoTOJv    [j.sv      T.iO-ov    ::po'r/.0[j.[j.aTOc    xai    "irpav 
dc7coBsBoxt[;.a(7[j.Evov  TxavBalou 

When  considered  along  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  (3—8  =  Rom.  9  ;  33,  this 
parallel  deserves  a  higher  rating. 

(39)  I  Pt.  2;  5  Rom.  12  ;  1 
avsvsyxai,   7:yzu[i.'X~iv.'xc,  O-UTia?  zu-  T^aL^ai(j-%GCf.i  Ta  (jtop.aTa  Ojj.wv  0"j- 
xpoaBsxTG'j?  Hew  Bta  'It,g-o!j  Xpt-j-  aiav  ^wo"av,   ocyiav,    stjapsTTov  Toi 
ToO  0SCO    TTjV   T^oyixr;/   la^psiav   'j[xwv 

The  thought  is  very  similar.  The  sacrifice  in  both  cases  is  to 
be  pleasing  to  God. 

(40)  I  Pt.  2 ;  8  Rom.  9  ;  22,  18 

£1^  0  xai  £-:£&'rj<7av  (7X£!jtj  opy^?  xaT/]pTia'£va  dc,  tx-co- 

X£iav.  18  6v  Be  ^^iXzi  (TxXtjP'jvei 

Our  author  here  echoes  the  Pauline  doctrine  that  the  disobedient 
were  foreordained  to  spiritual  hardness.  Cf.  I  Tim.  2  ;  7,  II  Tim.l; 
4.  That  the  thought  occurs  in  these  contexts  is  significant. 
See  Rendel  Harris'  emendation  of  £T£6^Y]a-av  to  stsO^y).  (Expos.  1909, 
p.  155  f.)  The  suggested  change  is  indeed  clever,  but  it  in  no  way 
affects  the  doctrine  at  issue,  since  it  is  found  elsewhere. 

(41)  I  Pt.  2;  9  Rom.  13;  12 

£X  TxoTOuc  ...  £i;  TO  D'a'j[j.aG"r6v      a-o&'OJ[j.£0'a  oOv  -%  Ipya  too  rr/.o- 
a'jTou  cpw;  Tou?,    xai    £vBL>(7(6[j.£S"a    Ta    o-}.a 

TOO    CptOTO^ 

The  figure  is  Pauhne  and  the  antithesis  suggestive.  The  con- 
textual connection  should  not  be  overlooked. 

(42)  I  Pt.  2  ;  10  Rom.  9 ;  25 

01  xoT£  otj  Xaoc  vDv  Be  'Koloc,  0£Oii      xa}v£<70)  tov  ou  ).a6v  [j.ou,  xai  -r,v 

01   OUX  Y1>.£Y][X£V0I.  vOv  Bs  IXeYjO'EVTEC         OLIX    TjYaTrTjIjivTjV 

"  Dasselbe  Zitat  und  in  demselben  Sinne  Rom.  9  ;  25,  eine  Stelle, 
die  dem  Verfasser  vorzuschweben  scheint."  (H.  Gunkel,  Dritter 
Abschnitt,  p.  40,  "  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments.  ")  Cf. 
Holtzmann's  comment  on  parallels  between  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  8  and 
Rom.  9  ;  33.  This  reference  to  Hosea  is  preceded  in  both  cases  by 
the  statement  that  God  had  so  "  called  "  them.  Cf.  Rom.  9  ; 
24  =  I  Pt.  2  ;  9. 


436  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(43)  I  Pt.  2 ;  17  Rom.  12 ;  10b 

(44)  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  Rom.  12 ;  10  a 

(TTopyoi 

Close  parallels  both  in  form  and  meaning,  yet  our  author  reverses 
the  order. 

(45)  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  Rom.  13 ;  7 

(46)  I  Pt.  2;  18,  19  Rom.  13;  5 
•j7coTaa-o-6[j.£vot  ...  19  Bta  o-livsiBt,-      Bw  avayxTj  uzoTao-o-sTO-at,  ou  [xovov 
(jiv  0£oQ  Oxocpspsi  TIC  }.'j7ra?  zao"-      Bia  tt^v  opyrjv,  a>,Xa  xai  Bia  t:y]v 

The  last  two  parallels  should  be  considered  together.  The  form 
is  similar,  but  the  background  is  different.  Dependence  may  read- 
ily be  inferred  from  these  passages. 

(47)  I  Pt.  3;  18  Rom.  8;  11 

^wo7totY]Q>£i(;  Be  5iv£tj[j.aTi  to  riv£3[j.a  too  syEtpavTO?  'Iyjo-oDv 

Iy.  vexpfov 

This  entire  verse  is  thoroughly  akin  to  the  Pauline  teaching  on 
the  subject.  The  suffering  of  Christ  for  sins  accords  with  "  gave 
himself  for  our  sins  "  (Gal.  1  ;  4)  and  "  died  for  our  sins  "  (I  Cor.  15  ; 
3).  It  is  significant  also  that  the  well  known  Pauline  antithesis 
of  the  o-ap^  and  7:>/£j[j.a  appears   here.     (Cone  Com.  p.  214.) 

(4g)  I  Pt.  3  ;  21  Rom.  4 ;  25,  10  ;  9 

Bi'    avaffTa(7£w?    'ItjCTOU    Xpio-ToD      YiyEpO-Y]    Bia   ty]v   Bixotiwcriv    YjpTv. 

miyzzurrt]);  ev  tT|  xapBia  gou  OTt  6 

BeOC      aUTOV      Yjy£lp£V      £X      VEXptOV, 

a"0)6'Yi<jYi 

It  was  noted  in  the  parallel  I  Pt.  1  ;  21  =  Rom.  4  ;  24  that  these 
authors  saw  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  a  special  power  or  proof 
which  would  beget  faith,  which  in  turn  would  lead  to  justification, 
hence  "  salvation."  Our  author  parallels  Paul's  whole  train  of 
reasoning  with  the  simple  phrase  Bt,'  ava(7Ta<7£wc,  apparently  im- 
plying what  Paul  explicitly  states. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  437 

(49)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Rom.  14 ;  10 

TO)   £TOt[j.(or   xpivovTt,    ^ojvTa^    xai      r.d'^ztc  7:apao"~fj'7O[J.£0-a  Toi  |jr||j.aTi 

"  So  far  as  the  dead  are  concerned,  believers  only  are  included 
in  the  writer's  thought,  just  as  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  last  things 
takes  account  of  them  alone.  The  believers  were  conceived  of  as 
being  subject  to  judgment."     Cf.  II  Cor.  5  ;  10.     (Cone  Com.  p.  317.) 

(50)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Rom.  12  ;  9,  10 

£?;  sauTOUc  ayaTOjv  exTsvrj  I/ovts;      •/)  aya-Xj  avuT^oxpiTor  10  ttj  cpO^a- 

The  context  adds  to  the  significance  of  this  parallel.  See  "  Der 
Petrinische  Lehrbegriff  "  p.  420. 

(.51)  I  Pt.  4 ;  9  Rom.  12 ;  13 

OiV/csvia  is  only  found  in  Rom,  12  ;  13  and  Heb.  13  ;  2.  <I)t>.o- 
cz'^oq  occurs  only  in  I  Tim.  3  ;  2,  Tit.  1  ;  8,  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  9.  The 
use  of  this  rare  word,  although  in  a  slightly  different  form,  in  this 
context  may  indicate  a  real  point  of  contact.  This  parallel  occurs 
between  two  drawn  from  the  same  contexts,  i.  e.,  I  Pt.  4  ;  8  = 
Rom,  12  ;  9,  10  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  10  =  Rom.  12  ;  6. 


d 

(52)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Rom.  1 ;  7 

This  verbatim  agreement  is  very  suggestive,  yet  this  form  is 
common  with  Paul.  The  "  Pastoral  Epistles  "  employ  llsoc  also. 
The  expression  also  occurs  in  Rev.  1  ;  4,  which  is  probably  bor- 
rowed from  I  Peter.  n>/^&>uvQ-£tv  suggests  that  II  Peter  copied  the 
phrase  from  I  Peter.  The  same  word,  as  well  as  contextual  reasons 
make  it  much  more  probable  that  our  author  is  following  Ephesians 
here  rather  than  Romans. 

(53)  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  Rom.  15  ;  G 
E'j}.oyTjt6?  6  i-)zoc  xat,  za-r^p  toj     So;a^Yj"  tov  Heov  xai  -^Tspx  Toii 
xupioD  r,[j.(ov  'iTiToti  XpiCToD                x'jpiojT([j.(ov'lY]«7oDXpi'7Toti.  Cf.l;7. 

Dependence  may  easily  be  inferred  from  this  very  close  agree- 
ment.    I  Pt.  1  ;  2b  and  1  ;  3a  =  Rom.  1  ;  7  and  15  ;  6,  modelled 


438  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

on  the  plan  of  1  ;  7.  With  the  single  exception  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  3,  this 
exact  phrase  is  peculiar  to  Paul  and  at  the  same  time  very  common 
\mXh.  him.  Though  the  close  agreement  is  striking  in  the  context, 
Eph.   1  ;  3  shows  a  much  more  probable  connection. 

(54)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  Rom.  2 ;  10 

supeS-T]  £ic  sTcaivov  xai  Botav  xai  Bo2a  Bs  xal  ti.[j.y]  xai  siprjVY)  xav- 
TijjiTJv  'tri    Tw     spya^ojj-svw     -6     ayaO-dv. 

Cf.  2';  7. 

This  may  be  a  real  echo,  though  the  evidence  is  inadequate  for 
any  degree  of  certainty. 

(55)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Rom.  8 ;  28,  30 

ujjleTi;  Ss  ysvo?  sxT^sxto'v  toTc  xaTOC  TupoO^satv  x}vYi-oT(;  o3(TIv  . . 

<j\)c  TrpooipiTE,  TO'JTOU?  xat,  SXa>>E(7S 

Although  the  ys'^*^?  exXextov  may  be  borrowed  from  Isa.  43  ;  20 
it  is  in  thorough  accord  with  Paul's  doctrine  of  election. 

(56)  I  Pt.  3;  13  Rom.  8;  28,  31 

Tt$  6  xaxwffwv  u[j.ac  sav  too  aya-  toT?  ayaTTfocrt  tov  Beov  xavtra 
8-otj  ^TjT^toTai  ysvYj^O'E  awzpyti  zic  ayaQ-o'v.    31  ei  6  ©eoi; 

•j;i;£p  Y)[j.(ov,  TIC  xaQ'  Yjpov 

The  parallel  is  closer  in  thought  than  in  form. 

(57)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2  Rom.  6 ;  12 

tic  -b  [j.rjXETi  avOpoj-wv  £-i&-j[j.taic      [j.-?]  ouv  [ja(7t7xu£Tco  Tj  ajj.apTia   sv 

Toi      O'VYjTW      6[J.WV      G-OiiJ.a-l  .   .   .    £V 

ToT?  £7:(,8'tj[j.iaic  .  .  .  a[j.apTta 

This  parallel  is  strengthened  both  by  the  context  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 
=  Rom.  4  ;  2,  11  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  1  =  Rom.  6 ;  2,  7. 

(58)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2  Rom.  6 ;  12 

aXkof.  b-z'kri\i.o(.':i  0£oQ  uXkoc    7capacrirY](7aTE     zau-ouc    to> 

0EW 

This  antithesis  may  indicate  Pauline  influence,  since  it  follows 
immediately  after  a  possible  point  of  contact. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  439 

(59)  I  Pt.  4 ;  3  Rom.  13 ;  13 

7ce7cop£U[;.£vou(;    £v    aTsXysiai?,  ir^,i-      7:spt7iaTir]'ao)[j.£v  [j.Tj  xo>ij.oi;  xai  [ji- 
O-ujxiai^,  oivocp^^uyoat?,  xo)ij.O!,c,  7:0-      Qaic,  [j.y]  xoiraic  xai  ao-sXYso^c;  . 

Though  the  thought  is  similar,  the  context  is  hardly  in  favor  of 
dependence. 

(60)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Rom.  3 ;  3 

T^o'yia  ©£oO  T^o'yia  toO  Bsoti 

In  all  probability  this  parallel  is  due  to  accident. 

(61)  I  Pt.  5;  5   .  Rom.  12;  10 

you[j-£voi 
The  thought  is  similar  but  the  form  is  different. 

(62)  I  Pt.  5;  13  Rom.  16;  16 

XpifTTOU 

/g3)  I  Pt.  5;  14  Rom.  16;  16 

d(77i;aG-a(j9^£,  c(XkY[ko\j(;  £v  cpi}.Yi[j.aTt,      anr.d'yixab-z  uWr^^oDi;  £v  cpt,lrj[j.a-t 
aya^iY]?  ayuo 

These  salutations  are  clearly  built  on  the  same  specifications. 
The  form  is  common  with  Paul,  hence  its  occurence  in  I  Peter  can 
be  no  proof  of  dependence  upon  Romans. 

The  following  table  of  parallel  references  will  serve  to  make  more 
apparent  the  relationship  between  Romans  and  I  Peter. 


440 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


I  Pt.  1 
1 
1 
1 
I 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

2 
2 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 


2      = 

Rom 

.  8 ;  29,  11 ;  2 

I.  Pt 

.  3 

;  4 

= 

Rom 

.  2 

;  16,  7 ;  22 

2b    = 

11 

1;  7 

» 

3 

;  8 

=: 

» 

12  ;  16,  15  ;  5 

3       = 

11 

15;  16 

» 

3 

;  8 

r= 

II 

12;  5 

7       = 

11 

2;  10 

>} 

3 

8 

= 

II 

12;  10 

9       = 

11 

6;  22 

» 

3 

,  8 

= 

II 

12;  16 

14     = 

11 

12;  2 

» 

3 

8 

= 

ti 

12:  13 

15     = 

11 

12;  2 

» 

3 

9 

= 

>i 

12;  16,  17 

17     = 

11 

2;  11,  6 

>t 

3 

9 

z^ 

II 

12;  14 

20     = 

11 

16;  25 

» 

3 

11 

^ 

II 

12  ;  18,  14  ;  19 

21     = 

11 

4;  24 

1) 

3 

13 

= 

II 

8 

28,  31 

22     = 

11 

12;  9,  10 

3 

18 

=z 

II 

5 

6,  8 

4       = 

9;  33 

» 

3 

18 

zzz 

II 

5 

10 

5       = 

11 

12;  1 

» 

3 

18 

= 

ji 

8 

11 

6       = 

11 

9;  33 

» 

3 

21 

zrz 

II 

4 

25,  6;  4, 10;  9 

6b    = 

11 

9;  33b 

» 

3 

22 

= 

II 

8 

34 

8       = 

9;  33a 

» 

3 

22 

= 

II 

8 

38 

8b    = 

}} 

9 ;  18,  22 

» 

4 

1 

^^ 

J) 

6 

2,  7 

9       = 

8;  28,  30 

» 

4 

2 

:=: 

II 

6 

12 

9b    = 

11 

13;  12 

» 

4 

3 

=z 

13;  13 

10    = 

11 

9;  25 

» 

4; 

5 

= 

II 

14;  10 

11     = 

11 

7;  23 

» 

4; 

7 

ZIZ 

II 

13;  11,  12 

13     = 

11 

13;   1 

» 

4; 

8 

= 

II 

12;  9,  10 

14b  = 

11 

13;  4 

» 

4; 

9 

= 

12;  13 

14c  = 

11 

13;  3 

» 

4; 

11 

3= 

II 

3;  3 

15     = 

11 

12  ;  14,  20,  21 

>! 

4 

11 

= 

12;   7 

17     = 

11 

12;  10  b 

» 

4; 

13 

= 

II 

8;  17,  18 

17  b  = 

1) 

12;  10  a 

a 

5; 

1 

zm 

II 

8;  17-19 

17c  = 

1) 

13;  7 

>t 

5 ; 

5 

=z 

» 

12;  10 

18     = 

11 

13;  5 

1) 

5; 

13 

z=. 

II 

16;  16 

24     = 

11 

6;  2.  11,  18 

» 

5; 

14 

— 

16 

;  16 

From  the  above  table  we  may  sum  up  the  possible  points  of  contact 
with  Rom.  12,  as  follows  ;  2.  2,  9.  10  1.  14,  20,  21,  10b,  10  a,  16,  5, 
10,  16,  13,  16,  17,  14,  18,  9,  10,  13,  7,  10.  Rom.  8  also  contains 
a  number  of  parallels,  i.  e.,  12,  1,  4,  3,  7,  5,  13,  11,  12.  Many  of 
these  it  wiU  be  noted  occur  in  groups  in  close  contextual  con- 
nection. 

Bennet  has  an  excellent  analysis  of  the  parallels  in  Rom.  12  ; 
1—13;  14  in  the  "New  Century  Bible"  on  the  Gen.  Eps.  p.  33  f. 


SUMMARY 

The  foregoing  parallels  and  notes  it  is  believed  show  quite  con- 
clusively that  "I  Peter  "  is  indebted  to  "Romans."  The  parallels 
have  been  too  close,  employing  too  similar  phraseology,  and  too 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  441 

often  of  the  same  order  to  be  independent.  Nor  have  instances 
been  lacking  to  show  the  priority  of  the  Pauline  Epistle. 

Few  indeed  are  the  advocates  of  the  priority  of  "  I  Peter."  B. 
Weiss  has  made  the  most  heroic  effort  of  all  to  defend  this  position 
in  his  "  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff."  His  pupil  Kiihl  follows  a  similar 
line  of  thought.  The  anonymous  article  on  "Peter"  in  the  "  Inter- 
national Encyclopaedia  "  1910,  says  "  The  opinion  of  Weiss  and 
Kiihl,  has  much  in  its  favor,  and  appears  on  the  whole,  the  most 
probable."  Bigg  is  inclined  to  favor  the  independence  of  our  author. 
Cf.  also  E.  Scharfe's  "Die  petrinische  Stromung  der  neutestament- 
lichen  Literatur."   (1893.) 

With  these  exceptions  the  scholars  of  all  schools  are  agreed  that 
our  author  was  the  borrower.  Strange  to  say  not  all  the  most 
enthusiastic  defenders  of  this  position  are  to  be  found  in  the  "  rad- 
ical school."  "  Conservatives  "  claim,  on  the  one  hand,  that  this 
dependence  upon  Romans  is  a  proof  of  its  genuineness,  while  "  radi- 
cals "  maintain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  proves  the  very  opposite. 
At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  review  a  few  of  the  opinions  and  argu- 
ments of  some  of  the  leading  conservative  scholars. 

Chase  in  his  excellent  article  in  H.B.D.  says  "  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  author  of  I  Peter  was  acquainted  with  this  Epistle,"  i.  e.,  Romans. 
Zahn,  the  worthy  prince  of  German  conservatives,  says  :  "It  is 
especially  the  hortatory  portion  of  Romans  to  which  I  Peter  shows 
numerous  points  of  resemblance  ;  Rom.  12  ;  2  =  I  Pt.  1  ;  14,  [xr, 
crDG/yjtj.a'Ti^S'TS'ai,  with  substantially  the  same  object  in  the  dative  ; 
Rom.  12  ;  17  =  I  Pt.  3  ;  9,  [xriBsvl  ([j.tj)  a7:oBtBov"c  xazov  av-i  xocxoti, 
in  both  instances  standing  between  an  exhortation  to  humihty  and 
the  advice  to  preserve  peace  with  non-Christians,  while  in  the 
immediate  context  in  both  passages  stands  the  command  that  they 
bless  their  persecutors  instead  of  reviling  them  (Romans  12  ;  14). 
Taken  in  connection  with  such  clear  resemblances,  a  certain  weight 
is  to  be  given  also  to  similarities  in  the  same  chapter,  which  cannot 
be  used  as  positive  proof,  such  as  the  similar  use  of  loyixo'?, — not 
io  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  or  LXX,— Rom.  12  ;  1,  I  Pt.  2  ;  2, 
and  the  conception  of  offerings,  in  a  figurative  sense,  made  by 
Christians,  Rom.  12  ;  1,  I  Pt.  2  ;  5.  In  relatively  close  proximity  to 
these  parallels,  Rom.  13  ;  1-7  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  13-17,  occurs  an  ex- 
hortation with  regard  to  civil  authorities.  The  sense  is  not  only 
the  same  but  several  expressions  are  alike,  e.  g.  the  aim  for  which 
civil  authorities  exist  is  described  thus  "  (N.  T.  Intro.  II,  p.  187)  : 
Cf.  parallels  I  Pt.  2  ;  13,  14  =  Rom.  13  ;  1,  I  Pt.  2  ;  14b  =  Rom. 
13  ;  4,  I  Pt.  2  ;  14c  =  Rom.  13  ;  3.  For  the  continuation  of  Zahn's 
argument  see  note  on  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  8  =  Rom.  9  ;  33. 


442  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

As  a  leader  of  English  Conservatives  we  may  quote  Sanday  (Com. 
on  Rom.  Ixxv  f.)  :  "  The  resemblance "  between  these  parallels 
"  is  too  great  and  too  constant  to  be  merely  accidential.  In  I  Pt. 
2  ;  6  we  have  a  quotation  from  the  LXX  that  we  find  in  Rom.  9  ;  32. 
Not  only  do  we  find  the  same  thoughts,  such  as  the  metaphorical 
use  of  the  idea  of  sacrifice  (Rom.  12  ;  1  =  I  Pt.  2  ;  5),  and  the  same 
rare  words,  such  as  c!ja'/Y]vaTt^eo-Q>ai,  avuxdxpiToc,  but  in  one 
passage  (Rom.  13  ;  1  —  7  =  I  Pt.  2  ;  13—17)  we  have  what  must  be 
accepted  as  conclusive  evidence,  the  same  ideas  occurring  in  the 
same  order.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  of  the  two,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  is  the  earlier.  St.  Paul  works  out  a  thesis  clearly  and 
logically  ;  St.  Peter  gives  a  series  of  maxims  for  which  he  is  largely 
indebted  to  St.  Paul.  For  example  in  Rom.  13  ;  7  we  have  a  broad 
general  principle  laid  down,  St.  Peter,  clearly  influenced  by  the 
phraseology  of  that  passage,  merely  gives  three  rules  of  conduct. 
In  St. Paul  the  language  and  ideas  come  out  of  the  sequence  of  thought ; 
in  St.  Peter  they  are  adopted  because  they  had  already  been  used  for 
the  same  purpose."  For  Sanday  and  Headlam's  further  argument 
see  note  on  I  Pt.  2  ;  6  =  Rom.  9  ;  33. 

Numerous  quotations  from  the  "  liberal  school  "  might  be  given 
in  defence  of  the  position  here  maintained  by  "  conservatives," 
but  let  one  suffice.  Knopf  rests  the  case,  "  vor  allem  an  den  starken 
Anleihen,  die  I  Peter  bei  den  Paulusbriefen  macht,  Anleihen,  die  das 
theologische  Gedankengut  im  allgemeinen,  aber  auch  besondere  ein- 
zelne  Gedanken  in  ihrer  speziellen  Formulierung  betreffen.  (Vgl. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  13-17  mit  Rom.  13  ;  1-7,  I  Pt.  3  ;  8  f.  mit  Rom.  12  ;  16  f.) " 
See  "  Das  nachapostohsche  Zeitalter  "  p.  33  f. 


EPHESIANS 
A* 

a— b 
(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1 ;  2 

yapii;  upv  xai  sipYJvY]  VJ^p^i  ^F^  ^'■'^^  sipYi'vr] 

When  considered  alone,  this  parallel  means  little,  but  when  placed 
alongside  the  following  parallel  which  is  also  in  exact  verbal  agree- 
ment, it  is  seen  to  be  very  important.  It  is  indeed  significant  that 
this  precise  form  occurs  when  so  many  others  might  have  been 
employed. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  443 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Eph.  1 ;  3 

Only  in  II  Cor.  1  ;  3  is  there  to  be  found  a  duplicate  of  this  perfect 
parallel.  Though  the  "  evidence  for  dependence  here  is  weakened 
by  II  Cor.  i  ;  3  "  (Salmon's  Int.  p.  553),  the  "  weakening  "  is  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  the  occurrence,  in  the  immediate  context 
of  Ephesians,  of  the  "  Petrine  "  emphasis  on  the  predestination  of 
beUevers,  which  is  wholly  wanting  in  II  Cor,  1  ;  1  ff.  Eph.  1  ;  3b 
also  leads  off  with  "  6  "  and  an  aorist  active  participle  used  sub- 
stantively (Burton's  Moods  and  Tenses  p.  165),  governing  r^ij.ot;;  just 
as  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  3b.  II  Cor.  1  ;  4  has  a  similar  construction  but  the 
participle  is  a  present  of  simultaneous  action,  and  is  separated  from 
its  antecedent  by  an  interpreting  phrase.  Though  oixTipp.wv  of 
II  Cor.  1  ;  3  b  is  synonymous  with  tXzoc,  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  b,  the  thought 
is  closer  in  the  Petrine  parallel.  The  evidence  is  in  favor  of  the 
dependence  of  I  Peter  upon  Ephesians  at  this  point. 

Zahn  says  :  "In  favor  of  the  conscious  dependence  of  I  Peter 
upon  Ephesians  is  the  fact  that  they  begin  with  exactly  the  same 
word,  "  zoXoyr^xbc  ....  Xpi'jTo'j,  6  "  followed  by  a  participle, — a. 
construction  which  does  not  occur  in  this  or  similar  form  in  any  other 
N.  T.  Epistle.  .  .  .  The  reference  to  the  future  x}«rjpovo[j.ia,  (cf. 
ex.  I  Pt.  1  ;  4,  is  found  also  in  Eph.,  only  farther  from  the  beginning, 
1  ;  14  ;  while  the  thought  which  immediately  follows  Eph.  1  ;  4  f . 
(cf.  1  ;  9,  11),  namely,  that  of  election  through  the  divine  foresight 
and  predestination,  has  been  utihzed  already  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  1  f.  (Int. 
II,  p.  186.)  Alluding  to  1  ;  5-13  and  Eph.  1  ;  5-15,  T.  K.  Abbot 
says  :  "  the  alternation  of  participles  and  relative  pronouns  is  the 
same  until  the  transition  to  the  succeeding  period  is  made,  in  the 
one  case  by  Bio,  in  the  other  by  Bia  to'jto  ".  (I  C.  C.  on  Eph. 
p.xxivf.)  The  substance  of  the  passage  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  3—5  corresponds 
to  that  of  the  following  passage  in  Eph.  1  ;  18 — 20,  IXrdc  (Ex.  34) 
being  emphasised  in  both,  and  its  object  being  designated  the 
z>.Yipovo[j.ta  (Ex.  23),  the  connection  with  the  resurrection  (Ex.  35) 
of  Christ  as  its  ground  being  the  same,  and  in  both  the 
B'jva[j.i(;  OsoD  being  put  in  relation  to  the  rla-ic.  (Ex.  24.) 
After  making  a  careful  analysis  of  the  foregoing  parallels  Von 
Soden  says  :  "  the  priority  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty 
by  the  text  itself."  ("  Hand  commentar  zum  Neuen  Testament,"  III, 
p.  122.)     He  also  considers  the  text  of  our  Epistle  to  be  more  compact 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  30  January,  1913. 


444  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

than  that  of  Ephesians.  These  conclusions  are  affected,  no  doubt, 
by  his  doubts  concerning  the  authenticity  of  Ephesians.  Against 
the  position  of  Von  Soden  may  be  urged  the  following  line  of  argument 
presented  by  Monnier  :  "  En  realite,  c'est  I'epitre  de  Pierre  qui 
tantot  resume  et  tantot  developpe.  C'est  elle  dont  les  idees  se 
suivent  d'une  fagon  large,  coulante,  sans  rien  de  rigoureux.  Si  le 
style  des  Ephesiens  a  des  detours  (1  ;  11  —  14)  ou  la  pensee  semble 
se  resaisir,  il  est  plein,  nerveux,  original  ;  les  idees  forment  un  en- 
semble solide,  bien  lie,  avec  une  indiscutable  puissance."  (Com. 
p.  261.)  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  general  consensus  of 
scholastic  opinion  is  that  "  This  form  of  benediction  is  copied  from 
Eph.  1  ;  3."     (Hort's  Ep.  of  Pt.  p.  27.) 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Eph.  1 ;  20 

Tov  systpavToc  au-ov  sx  v£xp(r)V  eysipac  auTov  Ix  vsxptov,  xai  sxa- 
xai  BoSav  aUTto  ^o'vtoc  O-iitsv  sv  Bs^ia  au-ou  .  -  . 

This  is  a  striking  parallel  and  in  this  context  is  very  significant. 
"  This  connection  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  with  Christian  faith 
and  hope  is  distinctly  Pauline."  (Cone  Com.  p.  308.)  Romans  Ex. 
12  affords  a  close  parallel,  but  this  one  combines  the  exaltation  of 
Jesus  with  the  resurrection,  and  in  this  respect  is  the  closest  N.  T. 
parallel. 
(4)  I  Pt.  2;  4-6  Eph.  2;  18-22 

xpoc      6v      xpo(7£p/6[Jxvot      }i0'ov  Bi'   auToO  typ^-tv  tyiv  Tcpoa-aywyriV 

twvTa  .  .  .  19)  .  .  .   oixeToi  toD  0soO. 

5)  xai  au-ol  w?  }aO'Oi,  Zdyxtc  oly^o-  20)  27roixoBo[j.YiQ'£v-£c  Irl  to>  0-s- 
Bo[j.sTcr&-s,  oTxoc  Tcvsup-aTixo?  [xeXCw  .  .  .  oyzcjc  axpoyojviaiou  au- 

6)  .  .  .  }ii)-ov  axpoY^vtotov  toD  XpicTToD  'IrjCrou 22) 

G-JVOIXoBoiJ-STg-Q-S    sic     XaTOlXTjTY]'ptOV 

This  arrangement,  borrowed  from  Abbot  (Com.  p.  xxv),  shows 
the  extended  parallel  in  detailed  form.  In  I  Pt.  2  ;  4  and  Eph. 
2  ;  18  access  to  God  is  through  Christ.  Cf.  also  I  Pt.  3  ;  18  and 
Eph.  3  ;  12.  Holtzmann's  theory,  that  the  reference  to  Isa  28  ;  16 
was  suggested  to  our  author  by  the  axpoyfovtatov  of  Eph.  2  ;  20, 
is  quite  plausible.  The  word  is  found  in  the  N.T.  only  in  these 
two  passages.  The  reference  in  Acts  4  ;  11  may  seem  to  indicate 
the  originality  of  I  Peter,  yet  stress  cannot  be  placed  upon  this 
point,  since  Acts  may  depend  upon  I  Peter.  See  also  the  discus- 
sion on  Rom,  Ex.  2—4.  The  believers  are  frequently  thought  of  as 
a  spiritual  temple  by  Paul.      (Cf.  I  Cor.  3  ;  16.)     Cone  thinks  the 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  445 

application  of  the  epithet  "living"  is  not  only  obscure  here  but 
also  has  the  appearance  of  a  mixing  of  metaphors,  and  that  the 
transition  is  abrupt  from  "  new  born  "  babes  longing  for  the  reasonable 
milk  to  "  living  stones  "  in  a  "  spiritual  house."  These  considerations 
are  important  in  determining  the  order  of  priority.  In  favor  of  Paul's 
independence,  Zahn  offers  the  following :  "  Paul  develops  the  figure 
briefly  at  the  end  of  the  discussion  ;  Peter  makes  a  varied  and  detailed 
use  of  the  same,  in  connection  with  various  O.  T.  expressions,  and  also 
sayings  of  Jesus.  The  building  suggests  the  Lord  of  the  building,  who 
has  chosen  this  particular  stone  for  a  cornerstone,  and  Himself  has  put 
it  in  place,  after  it  had  been  rejected  as  worthless  by  the  foolish  master 
builders.  From  the  thought  of  the  living  character  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  who  is  represented  as  the  corner-stone,  is  argued  the  living 
character  of  the  stones  built  upon  this  foundation,  as  well  as  the 
freedom  of  their  attachment  to  Him.  The  comparison  of  the 
building  with  the  temple  suggests  the  thought  of  the  priesthood 
and  the  offerings.  The  corner-stone  is  also  the  curb-stone,  over 
which  passers-by  stumble.  It  would  seem  almost  as  if  in  I  Pt. 
2  ;  4— 8  one  were  hearing  the  voice  of  a  preacher  making  various 
applications  of  the  figure  suggested  by  his  text,  Eph.  2  ;  20-22  " 
(Int.  II,  p.  187.)  Alluding  to  I  Pt.  2  ;  4-6  Monnier  says  :  "  La  meme 
image  se  retrouve  dans  Eph.  2  ;  20,  21,  dont  ce  passage  depend." 
(Com.  p.  90—91.)  Cf.  Ignatius  and  Hermas  for  further  development. 
There  seems  to  be  a  clear  case  of  the  independence  of  Paul  at  this 
point,  but  whether  I  Peter  depends  upon  Ephesians,  or  Romans, 
or  both  is  not  so  clear.  Our  study  of  Romans  (Ex.  2—4)  led  us  to 
believe  it  to  be  the  original  starting  point  for  our  author.  The  above 
discussion,  it  is  believed,  shows  that  he  was  also  acquainted  with 
Ephesians.  "  II  ne  copie  pas,  il  s'inspire.  Son  attitude  est  celle 
d'un  disciple."     (Monnier's  Com.  p.  264.) 

(5)  I  Pt.  3 ;  19  Eph.  4 ;  9 

ToT?   £v  '-pL>>>axT|   TivsyiJ-aciv    T^opsu-      xa-rspY)    TCpwxov   zlc,  toc   xa-oj-spoc 

Apparently  Paul  thought  only  of  the  descent  of  Christ  from  heaven 
to  the  present  world  ;  the  abode  of  the  power  of  death.  Yet  some 
think  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  idea  as  developed  in  I  Peter. 
The  doctrine  of  the  "  Harrowing  of  Hell  "  in  its  pre-Christian  form 
probably  goes  back  to  Isa.  26  ;  12—19,  which  Cheyne  dates  cir.  104 
B.  C.  (cf.  also  Ezek.  37.)  It  is  based  on  the  mythological  conception 
of  Yahweh  smiting  the  dragon  of  darkness  and  delivering  his  people 


446  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

from  the  prison-house  of  the  underworld.  The  Christians  took  over 
the  doctrine  with  but  few  changes.  They  thought  of  God  effecting 
the  dehverance  in  the  person  of  Christ.  This  passage  in  Ephesians 
marks  the  transition  point,  and  from  it  our  author  apparently  drew 
the  doctrine  of  the  mission  of  Christ  to  the  underworld.  The  more 
developed  form  found  in  I  Peter  indicates  the  priority  of  Paul.  The 
thought  occurs  in  the  fully  developed  form  but  this  one  time  in  the 
N.  T.,  but  is  common  in  later  writings.  Sandwiched  as  it  is  here 
between  thoroughly  Pauline  ideas  and  phrases,  the  probabihties  are 
highly  in  favor  of  Abbot's  theory  of  dependence.  See  Monnier's 
discussion  Com.  p.  172—178. 

(6)  I  Pt.  3;  21—22  Eph.  I;  20—21 
avao"c-a<7£0)? 'lY]o-ot>  Xpt(7ToO,  6c  scr-  systpa?  atj-6v  sz  vsxpwv  xai  sxa- 
Tiv  sv  Bs'(^ta  0soO,  7:op£u8'£i$  dc,  O-ktcv  sv  Ss'fta  oluzou  h  -:oXc  stcou- 
o5pav6v.  22)  t'KOzccyivzo)'^  auToi  paviot?.  21)  uT^spavw  rAcrf^t;  v.^yr^c, 
aYY£7.wv  xai  Ecoucrtcov  xai  B'jva-  xat,  zzo'j'ji'x.c  xai  B'jva[j.£(i>c  xai 
[X£WV  x'jptOTT-o;.  .  .  . 

The  exact  sequence  of  thought  and  similar  phrasing  in  this 
extended  parallel  thoroughly  justifj^  Zahn  in  saying  :  "  these " 
parallels  "go  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  the  observation  that 
Peter  and  Silvanus  had  Ephesians  before  them."  (Int.  II,  p.  187.) 
Robinson  also  thinks  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  dependence  upon 
the  Pauline  Epistle.     (Ep.  to  Eph.  p.  151). 

(7)  I  Pt.  5 ;  8  Eph.  6 ;  11 

6  ,  .  .  ^lai^oloc,  .  .  .  7:£pi7:aT£T  ^r,-  £vBo'7aa-0-£  -zry  7;avo7i:>.iav  zoo  0£Oij 
Twv  Tiva  xaTaTvtY,  •  (o  o^vzin-f^zz  r.^bc  zo  B-JvaaG-at  'j\>Mc  azr^vv.i  izpbc 
G'T£C£oi  zTi  7:iC)Zzi  .  .  .  Toc^  ^.£OoS£iac  zoo  Biajio'Xotj  .  . 

"  Dependence  on  the  part  of  I  Peter  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
at  the  conclusion  of  both  letters  it  is  suggested  that  back  of  the  men, 
through  whose  hostilities  the  readers  are  compelled  to  suffer,  stands 
the  devil,  whom  they  are  steadfastly  to  resist."  (Zahn's  Int.  II, 
p.  187.) 

b 

(8)  I  Pt.  1 :  3  Eph.  1  ;  7 

xaTa  TO  7co>.!j  (xuzou  llzoc  Y.ccza.  zbv  %\oozov  r^?  yapiTo;  auToQ 

This  parallel  is  very  significant,  since  it  follows  one  which  is  in 
complete  verbal  agreement.  This  usage  can  hardly  be  accidental. 
See  Ex.  2, 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  447 

(9)  I  Pt.  1 ;  10-12  Eph.  3 ;  5 

i^TipE'Jvrjaav   xpo<p^i:at  oi  Tcepi  t-?;?  piaO-Tj    toTc    uioTc    tcov    avS'po)7C(ov, 

sti;   'jij.ac    y^apiTO?   TrpocpYiTsucravTSi;  wc    vuv    a7i;exa}i'jo0>rj     toT;    aytoi? 

01?  aTrsxaA'JcpQ-Tj  oti  ou/  £a'j-  a7io(7To}vOtc    auToti    xai    TvpocpYJTai? 

^oTc   6[jIv  Bs   Brfjxdvo'jv    oc^toc,    &  sv  Tlvs-J^-aTi  •  3;  10  hcc  Yvopiab'Ti 

vuv  avY]YY£>v-/]  6[j.Tv  Bia  tcov  s'jay-  vQv 
YE^icaiJivcov 

I  Pt.  1  ;  10-12  finds  a  related  thought  in  Heb.  11  ;  13,  39,  40,  but 
Eph.  3  ;  5,  10  is  the  only  other  place  in  the  N.  T.  where  the  meaning 
of  the  prophecies  was  not  clearly  known  to  the  prophets  themselves 
but  has  first  become  so  to  us.  That  I  Peter  goes  beyond  Ephesians 
in  saying  the  prophets  themselves  were  made  acquainted  by  revelation 
with  their  own  ignorance  (Eph.  3  ;  5),  indicates  the  priority  of  the 
latter.  (Cf.  Abbot's  Com.  on  Eph.  p.  xxv).  Hort  thinks  we  have 
here  a  clear  "  clue  to  St.  Peter's  trend  of  thought."  (Ep.  of  St.  Pt. 
p.  64.) 

(10)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  Eph.  6  ;  14 

voiac  'j^.(ov  aATjO'eta 

No  other  passage  in  the  N.  T.  affords  as  close  a  parallel  to  our 
Epistle  here  as  Eph.  6  ;  14.  Dependence  is  made  more  probable  by 
£v  a%ryAul'j'\>zi  'lYiaou  XpwTOLi  (1  ;  13),  which  is  "  a  Pauline  term  for 
the  Parousia."     Cf.  I  Cor.  1  ;  7,  II  Thes.  1  ;  7.     (Cone  Com.  p.  306.) 


(11) 


I  Pt.  1;  20  Eph.  3;  11,  1;  4 

:ipo£YV(o^-j.£VO!j  [J-sv  7:p6  xaTafiol-^?      xaTa    TrpoO-eaiv  twv    aicovwv  -?iv  I- 

y^r:r;ixrjlj      '  TCOlTjCTSV  SV  Xpi(7TC0  .  .     ^Cf.  3;9,  10 

z^zAi'ia-o    r,[J.a?  sv  a-jTw  Tcpo  xa- 
-:a[iolrj?  xo(7[j.o!j 

The  "  preexistence  of  Christ  "  is  a  common  Pauline  conception. 
Monnier  thinks  with  Hort  (Ep.  of  Pt.  p.  80),  that  Trpo  xa-apoxY]?  is 
"  probablement  empruntee  a  Eph.  1  ;  4."  (Com.  p.  76.)  "  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 
and  Eph.  3  ;  9  correspond  in  the  same  reference  to  the  mysteiy 
ordained  -po'  xaTa^o/.-?;?  xo^[j.ou,  and  hitherto  hidden,  but  now 
revealed.  And  as  in  Eph.  3  ;  10  the  wise  purpose  of  God  is  now 
made  known  to  angelic  powers,  so  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  12  they  desire  to  search 
into  these  things."    (Abbot  Com.  p.  xxvi). 


448 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(12)  I  Pt.  2;  18  Eph.  6;  5 

01  oixerat  67COTacr(7oy£vo!,  sv  7:av-i      ot  Bot»}vOi,    uTraxo'JsTs   toT$  xupioi; 
(po(3(p  T0T5  BscTTcoVai^  .  .  .  [xstra  (po(3ou 

On  uxoTdcyaxs  f.  of  2 ;  13,  Dr.  Hort  comments  as  follows  :  "In 
Ephesians  (5  ;  21-24,  6  ;  1-3,  5-8)  subjection  (67:oTaG-(7S(7&-ai)  is  set 
forth  only  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  family  and  household  relations, 
the  subject  of  2  ;  18-3  ;  7  here,  but  apparently  as  founded  on  a 
general  principle  of  subjection  (6TOT:ao-(70[j.£voi  oOCkf\\rjic,  h  (po'Pq) 
Xptcr^ou),  laid  down  at  the  outset  in  5  ;  21,  which  likewise  corre- 
sponds in  drift  to  I  Pt.  5  ;  5  as  well  as  to  this  verse.  (Ep.  of  Pt. 
p.  139). 

Eph   5;  22 

::3cvtI      ai    yuval/wS?,    -zoic,   iStoic    avSpaaiv 


(13)  I  Pt.  3 ;  1 
yuvaTxcC    !j;:o~a'7(70[J.£voi    iv    r.yy-X 

(14)  I  Pt.  3;  6 

w;  Zappa    67:y)VvO'J'j2  tw  'AJipaaij,, 
xuptov  a!j-6v  xa}.o!JG'a 


(15) 


01  avBps?  .  .  . 

V£[J.0VT:£5    Tt[XTJv 


I  Pt.  3;   7 

.    TO)  Y'jvaix£u.)  a-o- 


Epli.  5;  22b,  33 

w?  Tw  XDpio)  (oTi  avr^p  scTtv  x£cp- 
a>.Yi  TT^?  yuvatxo?  .  .  .)  33  y]  y'jvTj 
iva  (po(3-^-at  t6v  avBpa 

Eph.  5;  25 
01  avBp£c,   ayaTraTE  -rar    yuvaTxac 

£a'JTWV 


Robinson,  in  commenting  on  Eph.  5  ;  33  b,  claims  "  there  is  here 
a  double  reference  to  this  passage  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  1—6,  which  clearly 
is  not  independent  of  Ephesians :  'O[j,oio)(;  yuvaTx£(;  67UOTa<j(70|xsvat 
ToTc  iBioic  avBpaTiv  .  .  .  crjv  sv  oo'(3o)  ayvYjv  avaTTpoyYjV  !j[xtov ;  and 
then  as  if  to  guard  against  a  false  conception  of  fear,  [j.r  cpopoyij-Evai 
[XYjBsjj-iav  rrTOTjG-iv."  (Com.  on  Eph.  p.  209).  The  general  trend  of 
the  thought  as  well  as  the  sequence  in  the  last  four  parallels  make 
dependence  very  probable.  When  taken  separately  these  citations 
do  not  merit  this  classification. 

(16)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Eph.  4 ;  32 

TO  B£  -zkoc  7:fx^-zc  b^sysip''jvzc,  yLV£0"Q'£  Bl  sic  oOXtjsjUc.  ypr^Gzoi 
cup.7raS>£Tc,  cpiXaBs^wOoi.  z^cnzXixy-  £'j'7-}.ay/vot,/apt^6[j.£voi£a'jToT;. .  . 
Xvoi  .  .  . 

This  form  of  exhortation  is  common  in  the  Pauline  literature. 
Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13-17,  I  Cor.  4  ;  12,  I  Thes.  5  ;  15.  But  since  the 
passage,  which  contains  a  word  (s-jT-Xay/vot)  not  found  elsewhere 
in  the  N.  T.,  follows  immediately  after  a  context  suggestive  of  Ephe- 
sians, dependence  is  made  ver}'  probable. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  449 

(17^  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Eph.  2 ;  18 

"  I  Pt.  3  ;  18  reminds  us  of  Eph.  2  ;  18,  while  the  verses  immedi- 
ately following  exhibit  the  ancient  explanation  of  Eph.  4  ;  8—10." 
(Abbot  Com.  p.  xxv.) 

(18)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2,  3  Eph.  2 ;  3 

avuvco)7:(-)v    £-ij-j;xLatc     (4  ;  2)    to      l%ib"j[iiy.iz  ~7^c  ryx-^mc  t,(j.(ov.  -oiouv- 
(io'ji-rjij.a  T(ov  s-J-vwv  xa—ipyarru-ai      tsc  toc  6'£}«rj[J.xTa  -^c  o-apxoc 

(4;  3). 

Monnier  has  pointed  out  this  close  parallel.  (Com.  p.  263.)  R.  Knopf 
also  thinks  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  dependence  upon  Ephesians. 
(Das  nachapostohsche  Zeitalter  p.  34). 


(19)  I  Pt.  1  ;  1  Eph.  1 ;  1 

This  Pauhne  form  of  address  is  worthy  of  attention  in  a  context 
so  suggestive  of  Ephesians.  Though  "  epistolary  forms  are  not 
made  by  any  one  man,"  it  is  indeed  significant  that  our  author  used 
the  Ephesian  form  both  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  his  Epistle. 

(20) 

I  Pt.  1  ;  1  Eph.  1 ;  4 

£/.}.£/.  ToT?  zc^zkzicc^o 

(21)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1  ;  5 

y.y~y.  "poYvcoTiv  7:poopi,'7ac 

Election  is  a  common  Pauhne  doctrine,  but  it  is  alluded  to  in  the 
opening  verses  of  but  three  of  his  Epistles,  i.  e.,  Eph.  1  ;  4,  I  Thes.  1  ; 
4  and  Tit.  1  ;  1,  granting  the  Pauhne  authorship  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  Predestination  is  also  a  Pauline  doctrine.  Cf.  Rom.  8 ; 
29,  30,  I  Cor.  2  ;  7,  and  Eph.  1  ;  5,  11.  But  in  the  beginning  of  no 
other  Epistle  is  it  alluded  to.  Paul  never  uses  the  noun  7:poYV(.)C7ic,  yet 
he  employs  the  verb  -poY^oWao  in  the  same  way.  Cf.  Rom.  8  ; 
29.  See  also  Acts  26  ;  5.  The  occurrence  of  these  ideas  in  the 
beginning  of  these  two  Epistles  only,  and  in  the  same  order  is  too 
significant  to  be  passed  over  lightly. 


450  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(22)  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  Eph.  1 ;  3 

sTvat,  r|[J.a?  ayioui; 

These  phrases  are  quite  different,  but  they  afford  a  close  parallel 
in  thought,  and  are  suggestive  in  this  connection. 

(23)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1  ;  5 

SI?  'jTcaxoYjv  xal  pavTia-[j.ov  ai[j.aT:o?      sic  uioO'STtav    (7)  aTcol'JTpwo-tv  ^loc 

Toti  at[j.aToc 

In  the  beginning  of  no  other  N.  T.  books  is  redemption  through 
Christ's  blood  so  mentioned,  except  in  Col.  1  ;  4,  I  Jn.  1  ;  7  and 
Rev.  1  ;  5.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  our  Epistle  cannot  depend 
upon  either  of  the  last  two.  Nor  have  we  found  sufficient  evidence 
to  suppose  that  it  was  influenced  by  the  companion  Epistle  of  Ephe- 
sians.  There  is,  therefore,  a  closer  parallel  here  than  can  be  found 
in  the  beginning  of  any  N.  T.  book  earlier  than  I  Peter.  True,  Paul 
never  uses  the  term  pavTio-p-oc,  yet  tlie  theology  is  the  same.  This 
exact  usage  is  found  only  in  later  writers  (e.  g.  Heb.  12  ;  24),  which 
indicates  the  priority  of  Ephesians. 

(24)  1  Pt.  1 ;  4  Epli.  1 ;  18 
xlr,povo[j.ia                                               /.lr,povo[j.iac 

The  "  inheritance  reserved  in  hea\-en,"  is  equivalent  to  the  "  hope 
reserved  in  heaven  "  (Col.  1  ;  5).  Ephesians  contains  the  doctrine 
of  "  the  hope  of  his  calling,  and  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  in- 
heritance in  the  saints."  Dependence,  therefore,  seems  somewhat 
probable  in  this  connection. 

(25)  I  Pt.  1  ;  5  Eph.  1 ;  13 

ITvs'Jij.aT!, 

The  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  obvious  in  both 
references. 

(26)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  Eph.  1 ;  14 
dc  sTratvov  zai  Bo'^av                           sic  s-aivov  — ?fc  Bo'cy^c 

That  this  close  parallel  follows  the  preceding  one  in  direct  con- 
textual connection  in  both  instances  is  significant. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  451 

(27)  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  Epli.  4 ;  22,  18 

ToTc  TTpoTspov  £v  TYj  ayvoia  'j[}xZv      22  -r;/  ;:poT2pav  avaaxpocpYjV.     18 
sTTiO-upatc  Bta    — f,v    o'^(yji'yr^j    -yv    ouaav    sv 

The  thought  is  thoroughly  PauHne.  Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  2,  I  Thes.  4  ; 
5,  and  Acts  17  ;  30.  'AYvoia  appears  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  these 
passages  and  in  Acts  3  ;  17  and  17  ;  30.  The  parallel  suggests 
dependence. 

(28)  I  Pt.  2  ;  9  Eph.  1 ;  11,  12 

'jjXEr?  ysvoc  £x}^£XTov  .  .  .  OTCO)?  Toc?      T^poopiaQ'SVTsc   xaTa   zpoO-sTiv  .  .  . 
apsTac  eiayYsi^^Tj-s  .  .  tic  to  sTvai  r^'J.ac  tie  s7:aivov    T/^r 

Bo'^TjC 

The  sequence  of  thought  is  worthy  of  note.     Cf.  Ex.  25. 

(29)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  b  Eph.  5 ;  8 

To3  £/v  cy.oTO'jc   'jij.ac   xa7i(7avTo;      f'{-:z  yap  ttots  (t/.otoc,  vuv  Ss  otoc 
SIC  TO  6-a'j[j.ai7T0v  a'jTo!;  owe  £v  xupuo 

"  The  transition  from  darkness  to  light  is  much  emphasised  in 
Eph.  5  ;  8—14,  yet  the  phrase  probably  was  suggested  by  Eph.  1  ; 
17-19."  (Hort's  Ep.  of  St.  Pt.  p.  130.)  The  preceding  parallel 
makes  this  one  more  significant. 

(30)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Eph.  2 ;  19 
Tcapoi/wOuc  xai  7:ap£-iB"/][j.0!JC                 Hvoi  xai  Tiapoixoi 

TTapoixo?  is  found  only  here  and  in  Acts  7  ;  6,  29.  riaps-i^r,- 
[J.0?  occurs  only  in  I  Pt.  1;  1,  2;  11  and  Heb.  11;  13.  Z£vo?, 
a  comparatively  rare  word  in  the  N.  T.,  is  used  by  our  author  in 
4  ;  12.  It  is  employed  by  no  N.  T.  writer  in  the  above  sense  earlier 
than  I  Peter,  except  in  Eph.  2  ;  12,  19.  This  combination,  following 
Exs.  27  and  28,  is  very  suggestive. 

(31)  1  Pt.  3 ;  20  Eph.  5 ;  26 
Bi,eG-(6Q-r,aav  Bt'  GBaTO?  (21)  6  xai      iva  aOTviv    aytairri,   xocO-apiTar  to> 
'j[j.a(:    avTiTUTCTOv   vOv    ffw^ei    [3a7:-      },ouTpco  Toti  GBaTOc 

TiTjj-a 

Though  the  thought  is  more  crassly  expressed  in  our  Epistle  it 

is  important  to  note  that  this  reference  is  found  between  two  ver\^ 

suggestive  parallels,  i.  e.,  h  and  6. 

(32)  I  Pt.  5;  5  Eph.  5;  21 
rx'lXr^Lrjic  TTjV  TaTisivo'ppoT'JvTjV  £Y"      O-OTaTTo'ij-evoi  a>.Ar'7.oic 
xoij.jitoTao'O'S 

See  note  on  Ex.  12. 


452  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(33)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  Eph.  6 ;  21 

aBsT^cpou  .  .  .  sypa'j^a  .  .  .  6v  £7i£[;-cj>a 

Attention  is  to  be  directed  to  the  use  of  the  word  7:1(7-0?  as  well 
as  to  the  general  similarity.  The  proper  names  play  similar  parts 
in  connection  with  the  verb  in  the  first  person,  Aor.  Ind. 

(34)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  Eph.  6 ;  23 

£ipv]v/]  ujJiTv  Tracriv  toTc  sv  XpKTTw      sipTjvr,  'zoXc  oc^z7/ztoic 

Though  this  parallel  is  not  very  close  it  is  significant  that  our 
Epistle  closes  with  sv  Xpio-i-co,  a  Pauline  phrase  "par  excellence." 
For  further  justification  of  this  classification  see  note  on  Ex.   18. 

d 

(35)  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  Eph.  1  ;  18 

dc  D.TUiBa  ^o~<7av  Yj  D.'Xc  -re  ySi/rfiZLoc  auToD 

The  wording  is  different  but  the  thought  is  much  the  same.  Con- 
sidered alongside  Ex.  23,  this  parallel  deserves  a  higher  classification. 

(36)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Eph.  1  ;  20 
Bi    (XvaTTaTsco?  'Xr/yryj  XpiTTOJ  sx      lysCpa?  auTOV  Ix  vsxptov 
vsxpwv 

Suggestive  here,  though  a  closer  parallel  appears  in  Ex.  22. 

(37 1  I  Pt.  1;  17  Eph.  G;  9 

Tov     d(7:pocro)7wO>>r,[j.7CT(or     xpivovTa      7:po'7(o7:o}.rj'j»ia  o'jx  stti  Trap'  au-oi 

xa^a  TO  £xaa'-ou  Ipyov 

This  thought  is  suggestive  in  this  connection,  yet  it  is  reproduced 
Rom.  2  ;  6,  11,  Col.  3  ;  25,  Jas.  2  ;  1  and  Acts  10  ;  34.  See  discus- 
sion on  Romans  Ex.  11. 

(38)  I  Pt.  1  ;  18  Eph.  4 ;  17 

ix  T7]c  [j-aTaiac  6[j.(ov   avao-Tpoo-^c      £v  ij.aTai,o'TY,Ti  Toti  vooc  auTtov 

(39)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  Eph.  1 ;  7 

sluTpwB-YjTs  .  .  .  (19)   -ijjio)  al'jj.aTi      Iv  to  lyoij-sv  ty]v  a-oXuTpojTtv  Sia 

.  .  .  XptcTToO  ToO  al'jj.aTO!;  auToO 

Examples  37  and  38  show  Pauline  influence,  though  the  term 
"  redeem  "  is  considerabty  weakened.  The  thought  is  too  common 
with  Paul  to  be  sure  of  dependence  here.  See  Gal.  Ex.  6  and  I  Cor. 
Ex.  7. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  453 

(40)  I  Pt.  1 ;  20  Epli.   1 ;  10 

/po'vcov 

A  common  view. 

(41)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  Eph.  4 ;  25 

a7:o8£[j.£vo!,  o5v  tiS-qoim  v.ixvlyy  xai  Bio  a7io8£[j.£voi,  to  'Jis'jBoc  31, 
T,6iM^cf.  Bo}.ov  xat,  OT^oxpiTiv  xal  Traaa  Tuixpia  xai  0>ujj,oc  xal  opyY] 
oQ-o'vour  xai  rrao-ac  xaTa}>a)iar  xai  xpauy^j  "/-ai,  (SXaTcpYipa  apS-Yjpco 

acp'   6[j/ov  .  .  . 

This  is  a  very  suggestive  parallel,  yet  the  thought  is  common  in 
the  Pauline  Epistles.  Cf.  Rom.  13  ;  12  and  Col.  3  ;  8.  See  also 
Heb.  12  ;  1,  and  Jas.  1  ;  21. 

(42)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Eph.  2 ;  14 

•J\^.zXc  Vz  ^(iyoc  £x}.£Xt6v  [jacriX£iov  6  rcoirfOLq  toc  a[j.cpo'':'£pa  Iv  xai  to 
i£paT£U[j.a  £&>voc,  ayiov,  }.a6r  £i;  \yzG6^ov/rjv  tou  (ppayij.oj  }«'j<77.;  .  . . 
7:£pixoir,G-tv 

See  Ex.  27  and  Rom.  Ex.  55. 

(43)  I  Pt.  3 ;  15  Eph.  3 ;  17 

x'jpiov  §£  Tov  XptTTov  aYia(7a-£  xaTor^cai  tov  XptiTOv  Bta  T-yjc 
£v  TaTc  xapBiaic  6[j.cov  7:ia'T£0-)c  sv  toTc  xapBiat^  6[j.(ov  Iv 

ayaTTfi 

It  does  not  seem  probable  that  this  Isaianic  passage  was  suggested 
to  our  author  by  Eph.  3  ;  17. 

(44)  I  Pt.  4 ;  10  .  Eph.  4 ;  7 

£xa(7T0C    xauwc    £Aa|3£v    /apiTjj.a      ixdccTTto  Y;[j.fov  eBoOy]  y;  ^apt?  xoctoc 

T%  Bo)p£a(:  -oti  XpiaToU 

The  idea  of  the  distribution  of  spiritual  gifts  according  to  the 
ability  to  receive  is  common  in  the  letters  of  Paul. 

(45)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Eph.  3 ;  21 
Boca^£-ai6  0£6?Bia'lYj'7oD  XpiTTOo      auirw    y,    Boca    £v    XpiTToi    lY^Toti 

The  glorification  of  God  through  Christ  is  common  in  the  later 
literature. 


i54 


Or  a  Delmer  Foster 


The  following  table  will  show  the  sequence  of  the  foregoing  parallels. 


I  Peter 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
4 

r 
3 

7 

10 

13 

16 

17 

18 

18 

20 

20 

21 

1 


Eph 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
6 
4 
6 
4 
1 
3 
1 
1 

A 


esians 
1 
4 
5 
3 
5 
2 
3 
7 

18 
20 
18 
13 
14 
5 

14 

18,  22 
9 
17 
7 

11,  1  ;  4 
10 
20 
22,  25,  31 


I 

Peter 

Ephesians 

2 

4-6 

= 

2   ; 

18-22 

2 

9 

= 

i'; 

11,  12 

2 

9 

= 

2  ; 

14 

2 

9b 

= 

5' 

8 

2 

11 

= 

2  ; 

19 

2 

18 

= 

6  ; 

5 

3 

1 

= 

5  ; 

22 

3 

6 

= 

5  ; 

22,  33 

3 

7 

= 

5  ; 

25 

3 

8 

= 

4 

32 

3 

15 

= 

3  , 

17 

3 

18 

= 

2 

18 

3 

19 

= 

4 

9 

3 

20 

= 

5 

;  26 

3 

21-22 

= 

1  ; 

20-22 

4 

2,  3 

== 

2 

2-3 

4 

10 

= 

4 

7 

4 

11 

= 

3 

21 

5 

5 

= 

5 

21 

5 

8,  9 

= 

6  , 

11 

5 

12 

= 

6 

21 

5 

14 

= 

6  , 

23 

SUMMARY 

Other  points  of  likeness  and  similar  combinations  have  been  noted 
by  such  men  as  Chase,  Holtzmann,  Scharfe,  Weiss,  Monnier,  Abbott, 
Hort,  Westcott,  Cone,  etc.,  but  these  wiU  be  sufficient  to  show  the 
real  or  apparent  dependence  of  one  author  upon  the  other.  Though 
no  one  reference  may  prove  dependence  conclusively  the  cumulative 
evidence  of  a  succession  of  forty-five  parallels,  at  lowest  count,  is 
indeed  formidable.  The  thought  and  many  of  the  expressions  are 
the  same  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  1—7  and  Eph.  1,  even  to  verbal  agreement. 
The  fact  that  the  parallels  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  1—7  are  all  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Ephesians,  and  that,  on  the  whole,  they  show  progress  in  the 
Ephesian  order  almost  precludes  doubt  at  the  very  outset,  as  to  the 
relationship  between  the  Epistles.  (For  order  see  the  above  table.) 
The  close  similarity  in  the  salutation  and  final  greetings,  the 
sequence  of  thought,  which  is  obscured  by  analysis,  and  the  gene- 
ral structure,  to  say  nothing  of  similar  Christology,  go  to  show  not 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  455 

only  that  the  writers  were  of  the  same  school  of  thought  but  also 
that  one  was  actually  depending  upon  the  other.  Instances  were 
noted  in  which  the  thought  of  our  Epistle  shows  a  development 
of  the  thought  of  Ephesians,  while  the  latter,  at  many  points,  appeared 
to  be  the  more  original  and  logical.  There  are  other  considerations, 
not  coming  under  the  scope  of  this  paper,  which  confirm  the  results 
of  the  foregoing  study. 

Practically  all  scholars  agree  that  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of 
dependence.  Von  Soden  is  undecided  on  which  side  it  should  be 
reckoned.  Hilgenfeld,  B.  Weiss  and  Kiihl  contend  for  the  priority 
of  I  Peter,  but  the  overwhelming  weight  of  scholarship  supports  its 
dependence  upon  Ephesians. 

Abbot  concludes  that  "  the  parallels  are  so  numerous  that  the 
Epistles  may  almost  be  compared  throughout."  (I.  I.  C.  on  Eph. 
xxiv.)  In  harmony  with  this  observation  iMonnier  remarks  :  L'epitre 
a  ete  redigee  en  toute  liberte  d'esprit  par  un  ecrivain  qui  connaissait 
parfaitement  les  Ephesiens,  et  en  reproduisait  instinctivement  les 
expressions  essentielles.  (Com.  p.  261.)  Dr.  Hort  thinks  that  "  the 
connection,  though  close,  does  not  lie  on  the  surface,  and  that  the 
question  must  be  settled  by  identities  of  thought  and  similarities 
of  structure  rather  than  by  identities  of  phrase."  (Epis.  of  I  Pt. 
p.  5.)  Professor  Ropes  sees  such  a  close  similarity  that  he  is  ready 
to  say  "  there  is  here  a  closer  parallel  to  Paul's  thought  than  some 
of  the  Epistles  which  bear  Paul's  own  name."  (Apos.  Age,  p.  213  f.) 
Seufert  stands  almost  alone  in  ascribing  to  the  two  Epistles  the 
same  author,  of  course  neither  Paul  nor  Peter. 

Numerous  other  authorities  might  be  cited,  but  the  general  con- 
sensus of  opinion  is  that  "  the  acquaintance  of  our  author  with  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  especially  evident."  (Purves'  "  Chris- 
tianity in  the  Apos.  Age,"  p.  280.) 


COLOSSIANS 
D 
d 

(1)  I  Pt.   1  ;  4  Col.   1  ;  5 

xlYipovoiJiav  .  .  .  TSTTjprjijivr^v    h      tTjV    ll-X^y.  tTjV    a-oy.£V[jivr,v    -jij.Tv 

o5pavoTc  zlc,    'j\i.y.c  iv  toT;  o'jpavoT: 

"  The  thought  of  the  '  hope  ',  i.  e.,  the  blessing  hoped  for,  being 
already  prepared  is  not  expressed  in  this  form  by  St.  Paul  elsewhere, 
except  perhaps  in  I  Tim.  6  ;  19,  but  is  clearly  put  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  4.     In 


456 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


substance  it  is  involved  in  Phil.  3  ;  20,  and,  indeed,  in  Mat.  6  ;  20." 
(Abbot  I.  C.  C.  on  Col.  p.  197).  Cf.  discussion  on  Galatians  Par- 
allel 4.  This  is  a  close  parallel,  yet  it  is  more  probable  that  our 
author  was  influenced  by  Gal.  4  ;  7  or  Eph.  1  ;  18  ;  more  likely  the 
latter. 

(2)  I  Pfc.  1  ;  17  Col.  3;  25 

xara  to  ixuaxoo  Ipyov  xai  oux  sa^t,  ■Kpoaomo'kri^icc 

In  both  instances  an  impartial  judgment  is  pronounced  and  the 
penalty  is  to  be  inflicted  in  accordance  with  the  evil  done.  Cf. 
Rom.  2  ;  11,  12,  6,  Eph.  6  ;  9b,  Jas.  2  ;  1,  Acts  10  ;  34-35.  See 
discussion  on  Eph.  6  ;  9  =  1  Pt.  1  ;  17.  The  probabilities  are  that 
our  author  was  following  the  lead  of  Ephesians  here  rather  than 
Colossians. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  20  Col.  1 ;  26 

7cpO£Yvto(7[j.£vou  [J.SV  7:p6  xaTa(io}^Tj^  to    [j.L»a~Tjpiov    to    a7iox£xptj[j.[j.£vov 

xoc^J.ou,  oavepoiD'SVTO?   Bs   iiz    1(7-  utzo  twv  aiwvtov  .  .  .  vijv  Bs  soav- 

y6(.T0u  Twv  )(p6vo)v  sptoS-T]  .  . 

See  Eph.  3  ;  11,  1  ;  4  for  closer  parallel. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  Col.  3 ;  8 

'AxoO-s^xevoi  o3v  TiocTav  xaxiiav  xai  oi.T.ob-z'jbz  xat  6[xsT?  Ta  7i;avTa, 
uTCOxpicriv  xai  (pO-ovouc  xai  Tcaaa?  opy^v,  8'U[j.6v  xaxiav  (iXaTOYi^j-iav, 
Y.ix'ucckoOMc,  oda/^o'koyiix'^     sx     toO     TTOixaTO? 

See  Eph.  4  ;  22,  25,  21,  etc.  for  equally  close  parallels. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  18  Col.  3 ;  22 

01  oixsTai  67roT(X(70'6[j.evoi.  sv  TcavTi  oi  BouAoi,  UTcaxousTS  xaTa  tmvtcc 
cpopto  ToT?  BscTTiOTaii;  toT?  .  .  xuptot? 

Cf.  Eph.  6  ;  5. 


(6)  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  Col.  3 ;  18 

YuvaTxsc  67COTacro'6[j.£vai,  loXc,  iBioi(;      yuvaixs?    67COTa(7(7£(7&£    ^oiq    ibioic 
avBpa<7iv  avBpaatv 

See  Eph.  5  ;  22,  which  also  agrees  verbally. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


457 


(7) 


I  Pt.  3 ;  7  Col.  3 ;  19 

oi  avBpsi;  (tuvoixouvtsc  .  .  .  wc  acr-      oi  avBpsc,   ky^'^'^cts   tkc   yuvaTxa? 


a::ov£!J.GVT£c  tiij-tv 


Cf.  Eph.  5  ;  25. 

(8)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Col.  3 ;  12 

To  Bs  -ztsjc,  r^oontc  6[j.6opov£r,  svB'JG-ao-Q'S  .  .  .  aTuTvay/^va  oixTipjxou 
o-ufXTcaQ-dt?,  cpiXaBsT^cpo!.,  zi)<7j:'KyyyrA^  /yr^G'zo'rri'zix,  Ta7C£ivocppocruvY]v,  xpaij- 
TaTvsivocppovsg  .  .  .  TTjTa  ij.axpoS'Djxiav  .  . 

Cf.  Eph.  4  ;  32. 

(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Col.  1  ;  22 

S-ava-wOeic  [xsv  Tapxi  .  .  vuvi  a::oxaTTjX}.a5£v  sv  tw  (7(6[xaTi 

TTj$  aapxo?  a'jToO  Bia  toO  0-avairoy 

This  thought  is  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

(10)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Col.  3 ;  1 

b<;  s(7Tiv  £v  B£tta  ©£oij  7rop£uQ'£i?  6  Xpitrro?  scttiv  sv  B£^i.a|  tou 
£ii;  oupavov  ©soO  xa8'Yj[jxvo? 

(11)  I  Pt.  3;  22  b  Col.  2  ;  10,  1 ;  16 

67wO';:aY£VT(ov  auTw  o(.yyiAc<)v  xai  ■?]  x£(pa7.Y]  r^caa-r^c,  ap/Y);  xai  Icou- 
E^oucrtoiv  xoci  5Dva[j.£wv  ciac.   sv  aUToi  IxtitQ-yj  toc  xdcvTa, 

Ta  £v  ToT?  oopavoTc  .  .  .  £i';r£  S-povoi, 
sI'ts  xuptoTAjTEc,  £iT£  ap/_ai,  £!':•£ 
Etouctat 

With  the  last  two  parallels  cf.  Rom.  8  ;  34,  6  ;  2,  7,  and  Eph. 
1  ;  20-22,  for  better  contexts. 


(12)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7 

TCpOC7£tJ/^aC 


Col.  4;  2 


15       TT,    Ty^O>jt'X/-r\    7rpoxapT£p£iT£,    Yf^i" 
YOPOUVTSC 


Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  12,  Mt.  26  ;  41,  Lk.  21  ;  34,  I  Thes.  5  ;  6,  17,  etc. 
On  the  whole  this  reference  shows  no  more  similarities  to  I  Peter 
than  do  some  of  the  others  mentioned. 


458 


Ora  Delnier  Foster, 


(13)  I  Ft.  4 ;  8  Col.  3 ;  14 

■^pb  xdcvTfov  T-Yjv  £1^  i(xi>zoijc,  ocyoc-      iizi   %dtGi   hz   ■rouxoic,   ■^yjv   a'^txirr^v 
•KTCiv  IxTSv^  zyoy'sc, 

This  parallel  is  made  more  important  by  the  possible  reference 
to  Col.  4  ;  2  in  I  Pt.  4 ;  7.  Yet  we  have  reasons  to  think  I  Peter  is 
borrowing,  through  this  section,  quite  freely  from  Rom.  12. 

(14)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  Col.  4 ;  7 

Bia    UdouavoLi     6[jIv    Toti    tzkj-^oij      Tuyixoc,  6  ayaTaiTO?  aBsXcpo;  xa\ 
a^£>.cpoi5 .  .  .  £Ypa'j»a  tcio-xo?  .  .  .  6v  £7T£[j.']>a 

This  may  be  an  accidental  parallel,  yet  it  is  suggestive. 

The  following  table  will  show  that  I  Peter  is  following  Ephesians 
rather  than  Colossians. 


I  Peter  Ephesians 


;  1 

;  1 

;  2 

;  2 

;  2 

;  2 

;  3 

;  3 

;  3 

;  3 

;  4 

;  5 

;  7 

;  10 

3; 

;  13 

6; 

;  16 

4; 

;  17 

6; 

;  18 

4; 

;  18 

1 ; 

;  20 

3; 

;  20 

1  ; 

;  21 

1; 

;  1 

4; 

1 

4 
5 
3 
5 
2 

3 

7 

18 

20 

18 

13 

14 

5 

14 

18,  22 

9 

17 

7 

11,  1  ;  4 

10 

20 

22,25,31 


Colossians 
1  ;  1 


3:  25 


1  :  26 


I  Peter 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
■3 
3 
4 
4 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 


;  4—6     2  ; 

;  9          1; 

;  9          2; 

;  9b        5; 

;  11        2; 

;  18        6; 

;  1          5; 

;  6          5; 

;  7          5  ; 

;  8          4; 

;  15       3; 

;  18       2; 

;   19        4; 

;  20        5; 

;  21-22  1  ; 

;  2-3     2  ; 

;  10        4; 

;  11       3, 

;  5          5; 

;  8,  9      6  , 

;  12        6; 

;  14        6, 

)hesians 

Colossians 

18—22 

11,  12 

14 

8 

19 

5 

3;  22 

22 

3;  18 

22,  33 

25 

3;  19 

32 

3;  12 

17 

18 

1  ;  22 

9 

26 

20-22 

3;1.  2;10 

2-3 

[1;16 

7 

21 

21 

11 

21 

4;  7 

23 

It  appears  from  this  table  that  all  the  thought,  which  we  find  in 
Colossians,  that  is  paralleled  in  I  Peter,  is  to  be  found  also  in  Ephe- 
sians. On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  parallels  in  Ephesians 
that  are  not  to  be  duphcated  in  Colossians.  We  have,  therefore, 
on  evidence  that  our  author  knew  Colossians. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  459 

PHILEMON 

D 

No  one  can  determine  with  certainty  from  the  Epistles  themselves 
whether  our  author  did  or  did  not  know  Philemon,  but  that  he  made 
no  use  of  it  is  obvious. 

PHILIPPIANS 
D 

d 

<1)  I  Pt.  2;  5  Phil.  4;  18 

TO)     0£Cp   .   . 

Though  the  thought  is  much  the  same,  there  is  a  closer  parallel 
in  Rom.  12  ;  1. 

(2)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Phil.  3 ;  16 

■zh  Vz  TsAo;  TCavTS:;  6[j.6cppovoC  to   auTO  cppovsTv 

See  Rom.  12  ;  16,  15  ;  5. 

(3)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Phil.  4 ;  5 

zavTojv  ^£  TO  -iXoc^  r^yyvAzy  6   K'jptoc  i\'y6c 

See  Rom.  13  ;  11,  12,  which  is  in  a  more  favorable  context. 

,(4)  I  Pt.  4 ;  9  Phil.  2 ;  14 

cpi,>v6^£voi  si;  ocW-filooc,  avs'j   y^T"      'J^^cvTa  tjoisTts  y/opic  YoyyuTpiv 

ytJ(7[JL0U 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13.  Heb.  13  ;  2,  II  Cor.  9  ;  7,  Philem.  14. 
^5)  I  Pt.  4 ;  13  Phil.  3 ;  10 

XOIVWVsTtS   TOT?   TOti    XpiO-TOJ  TZaO'T,-         XOlVOJViaV     Toiv     7CaQ'Yl[JiaTt<)V     SC'JTOU 

[xaciv 

Verbally,  no  other  passage  is  such  an  exact  parallel.  But  the  idea 
of  sharing  and  participating  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  is  very  common 
with  Paul.  Cf.  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18,  II  Cor.  1  ;  7,  14  ;  10,  Col.  1  ;  24. 
This  similarity  suggests  dependence  but  the  context  is  not  in  its 
favor. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  31  Janoart,  1913. 


460  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  5 ;  3  Phil.  3 ;  17 

TtiTUOt.    Ytv6[J.£V0l    TOS    TiOtjJ.VlOU  Xad-WiJ    £/£T£    TUTIOV    fj[j.a<; 

Cf.  II  Thes.  3  ;  9,  I  Tim.  4  ;  12,  Tit.  2  ;  7. 

(7)  I  Pt.  5;  5  Phil.  2;  3 
otXkriXoi^  T-/]v  Ta7i£ivocppO(7tJvrjv  sy-      [j.YjBev  xaxa  spiS-eiav  t]  xsvoBo^iav,. 
xoji.(3w'7a'j&'£                                             OLHof.  -zri  TraTcsivocppoauvfi  ocXkrfkouc 

Y]YO'J[j.£voi.  bizt^iypv-zy.q  iauircov. 

See  Rom.  12  ;  10  for  better  context  and  equally  close  wording. 
Cf.  also  Eph.  5  ;  21. 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  Phil.  4 ;  22 

'  AoTcatsTat  b[i.<xc,  r\  .  .  .  a.(yK6iCoy':oix  b^Rc  tuocvte?  o\  6(.yioi . . . 

(9)  1  Pt.  5 ;  14  Phil.  4 ;  21 

a<7;ia<jacrB"£  dtXkfiko^jc  £v  ''|*i}.T,[j.aTi      aG^ac-aTQ-E  TCOCvxa  aytov  .  .  . 

The  last  two  parallels  are  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

The  foregoing  study  makes  it  clear  that  we  have  no  real  evidence 
that  I  Peter  in  any  way  rests  upon  Philippians. 

I  TIMOTHY 

D 
d 

(1)  I  Pt.  3;  3  I  Tim    2;  9 

wv  Ittco  ou/  6  £^o)D'£V  E^xx^vOXTji;  Tocc  ^^'wca-accc,  £v  xaTaaTo).7]  xoa- 
Tpi/(~)v  xoi  ;c£piO"£(7£(«)?  j^pucTLcov  Y)  [jio)  [j.£Ta  atBou?  xai  cro)(ppo(TUVYic, 
£v^'Jo-£(oc  i[j.a-wov  x6(7[j.05  xocr[J.£Tv  locuTac,   [J-yj  £v  TrXfy^J-ao-tv, 

Y]  XpuTw,  ■?)  [j.apYaptTai?,  y)  ifxairt,- 

Although  this  is  suggestive  it  need  not  presuppose  dependence,  for 
exhortations  to  plainness  seem  to  have  been  common  in  the  early 
church, 

(2)  I  Pt.  3 ;  4  I  Tim.  2 ;  10 

olTX  b  xpyzTO?  TYj?  xapBia?  av-  ouX  (6  ■Kpi'Kzi  yuvattiv  i-KccyyzX- 
S'pwTcoi;  >.o[j.£vati;  bzorji^iuv)   Zi    Ipyoiv   a- 

yaO^cov 

The  wording  is  not  close  enough  to  show  dependence,  yet  the 
antithesis  leads  one  to  suspect  it. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  461 

(3)  I  Pt.  3 ;  4  I  Tim.  2 ;  2 

This  word  appears  only  in  these  references  in  all  the  N.  T.  and 
suggests  dependence,  yet  the  context  does  not  seem  favorable. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  I  Tim.  5 ;  14 

Although  this  word  also  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  the 
N.  T.,  it  seems  to  have  been  accidentally  so  employed. 

(5)  I  Pt.  4;  11  I  Tim.  6;  16 

w  s(7Ti,v  T,  B62a  xai  to  xpdcTO?  dc      w  i:ip.-ri  xai  xpaxo?   a?ojviov  «ij.yiv 
Touc  aitova?  twv  aicovtov,  aij.Yiv 

This  thought  is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  Hterature  to  afford  an 
argument  for  dependence. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4;  16  I  Tim.  5;  13 

(u-Y)  .  .  .  TcaT/ETO))  w? . . .  txlXoTpio-      7:£pispy6[j.£vai  xa?  olxia?,  ou  pvov 
smcrxoTCOc       '  ^£  apyai,    a7.1a   xa\   cp^uapoi   xal 

TCspispyot, 

I  Timothy  refers  to  "  tatthng  and  meddlesome  women,"  whereas 
I  Peter  alludes  to  fanatical  zealots  inspired  either  by  religious  or 
civil  motives.  "Erst  unter  K.  Trajanus  finden  wir  den  aW.oTpio- 
smcTXOTcos  Oder  delator,  den  Denuncianten  als  Criminalverbrecher." 
(Hilgenfeld's  Einl.  p.  360.)  It  seems  clear  that  I  Timothy  alludes 
to  an  individual  weakness  while  our  author  had  in  mind  a  more 
serious  offense. 

(7)  I  Pt.  5;  2  I  Tim.  3 ;  3,  8 

^f]Vz  ai(7Xpox£pBco?  ^Xk%  TcpoWp)?      (£m(7xoxov)  .  .  .  ai^xpoxspBY],  3;  8, 

]p\  aic/poxspBsT? 

This  quaUfication  seems  to  have  been  a  general  requirement  of 
church  officials,  especially  of  bishops. 

(8)  IPt.  5;3  I  Tim.  4;  12 

TUTiot  yivo-jxvoi  Tou  Tioi^-viou  Tuzoc  Yivou  TWV  maxwv 

The  thought  is  similar,  yet  compare  Phil.  3;  17  and  II  Thes.  3;  9. 


462 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  I  Tim.  6 ;  12 

Both  clauses  were  written  in  view  of  trials  to  be  endured.  Timothy 
is  to  fight  manfully  in  the  moral  confhct  "  whereunto  he  is  called," 
whereas  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  are  "  to  receive  the  glory  of 
their  caUing  "  after  enduring  "  fiery  trials."  There  is,  therefore,  no 
necessary  connection  here. 

Other  minor  points  of  similarity  might  be  given,  e.  g.  I  Pt.  1  ;  2 
=  I  Tim.  1  ;  2,  1  ;  16  -=  3  ;  16,  1  ;  20  =-  4  ;  2,  2  ;  18  =  6  ;  1,  3  ;  18 
=  3  ;  16,  4  ;  9  =  5;  10,  etc.,  but  they  do  not  make  dependence 
probable. 

From  the  foregoing  data  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  one 
author  knew  the  work  of  the  other. 


n  TIMOTHY 

D 
d 


(1)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5 

xpivovTi  ^fi)VTa(;  xal  v£xpo!j(; 

(2)  I  Pt.  4;  7 

viq(]>aT£  zlc,  7:poGtoy^(xc 

(3)  I  Pt.  4  ;  11 

tb    io-Tiv    Yj    Boca   xai    xpdcTO^   elc, 
TOUi;  aicovac  twv  alwvcov  a^.^v 

(4)  I  Pt.  4;  19 

ol  xacr)rovT£(;  xaTa  to  Q-sXYjjxa  tou 

QzOO    TCiaTW    XTtCTTYl    TCapaTt&EO'&'W- 

cav  Tocc  '^oyocc, 


(5) 


I  Pt.  5  ;  4 


II  Tim.  4  :  1 


TYjffou     XptcnroG     toO     [x£7.Xovto$ 
xpivsiv  ^wvTa?  xai  vsxpou^ 

n  Tim.  4;  5 

v^cps  sv  xacri 

II  Tim.  4  ;  18 

(T)    7]   Boca    £1?    Touc    aiwva^   -rwv 
alwvwv.    a[r^v 

II  Tim.  1;  12 
Bi'    ry    aiTiav   xat    Tau-ra   izoLayyi, 

oOOl    OUX    l%iXlG^/6vO[XO(.i  .  .   .  ;U£7C£tO'- 

[xai    OTi   BuvaTO?   £a~i   ityjv   zapa- 
Q>"^x-/iv  [JLOU  cpuXa^ai 

II  Tim.  4 ;  8 


xop.i£T(7&>£     Tov     aiJ-apawivov     tTji;      (XTvoxsiTai,    ^.oi    6    ttj?   Bixaioaovvic 
Bo^-/)?  cTTECpavov  crx£cpavoc 

The  points  of  contact  between  these  Epistles  are  not  of  such  a 
character,  nor  are  they  of  sufficient  number,  to  make  dependence 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  •  463 

probable.  Obviously  neither  author  was  influenced  by  the  other  to 
any  appreciable  extent.  (Cf.  Holtzmann's  Commentar  zum  N.  T. 
Ill,  p.  110.) 

TITUS 

C— D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Tit.  3 ;  5 

6  xaToc  TO  r^oXb  auTou  tXzoc,  ava-      xa^a  tov  auTOu  Dxov  stoxtov  ^(^\^.v.c, 

Titus  refers  to  "salvation"  per  se,  whereas  I  Peter  alludes  to  a 
"  new  birth,"  a  new  creation. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  7  Tit.  2 ;  13 

ev  dc^iOxaT.u^'st  'Iyjcou  Xpio-ToU  s7:i'pav£iav    tTjC    Boctj?  .  .  .  'IrjToij 

XptaToO 

This  thought  is  too  common  to  afford  any  evidence  for  dependence. 
Cf    Col.  3  ;  4,  II  Tim.  4  ;  18,  Heb.  9  ;  2,  I  Jn.  3  ;  2,  etc. 

(3)  I  Pt,  1 ;  20  Tit.  1 ;  2,  3 

xposYvcoa^jivo'j  \xzv  "po  yMT(x.^o\ri<;  YjV    i'K'r\'^^zi\(/.'zo    6    a'jisyBr,?    Qzhq 

xoapu,  (pavspto8>£VTO?   8s   ziz    It-  7:po  xpovwv  awovwov,  soavspwcro  Be 

vdcTcov  Twv  y{j6vwi  xaipoT?  iSwtc  tov  }.6yov  auTOii 

The  phrasing  is  closer  than  the  thought  of  the  passage. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2  ;  9  Tit.  2 ;  14 
XoLfjc  zic,  7:z^i~o'\:r^'jV/                               laov  ::£pi,otJC"t,v  .  .  . 

Our  author  probably  borrowed  z£p!,;:cC-/)<yiv  from   the  LXX.     Cf. 
Exod.    19;  5. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Tit.  2 ;  8 

-Y]v  avao-TpooTiV  6[j.(ov  Iv  toT?  sQ-  }.6yov   uy^"?),  axaTaYvwcTTOv,    iva  6 

vsTtv    zyynzc    xaAv,     tva    Iv    (b  li  IvavTtac   lvTpa7i9],    [xriBsv   s/wv 

xaT(x}.a>.oucriv  'jp.wv  o>c;  xaxoxoiwv  Tcspl     upjv    }iY2^'''    'fs'^^^v    2 ;  7 

Ix  Twv  xa9;wv  spY^v,  iTroxTsuovTSt;  gzccwzw  7rap£/6[J.£vo?  t'j-ov  xalo 

?>oiacro)(ji   tov  ©sov,  .  17  xpsiTTOv  spY^v  .  .  . 
)cp  aY5c9'07:oio!JVTac    Cf.  3  ;  16 


i)V 


rocc 


This  suggests  dependence,   yet  our  author  more   probably  used 
Rom.  12  ;  14,  17  here.     Cf.  also  II  Cor.   8  ;  21,  Phil.  2  ;    15,  etc. 


464  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  2 ;  13  Tit.  3 ;  1 

Sia    Tov   x'jptov    SITS    [jactlsT  .  .  .      s^ouiriai?  UTCOTacrcscQ^at  xsiQ^ap/^sTv, 
SITS  TjY£[;.6aiv  .  .  .  7rp6<;   xav    spyov  ayaQ'Ov    £toi[j.ou$ 

sTvai 

See  Rom.   13  ;  1  for  equally  close  thought  and  better  context 

(7)  I  Pt.  2;  13  Tit.  2;  9 

01  TO  [j:rf/.i-i  avO-pojxwv  l%idv\}.iixi<;      'bo6'kooq   iBioic   Bs-jTZOTai?    -j-OTao-- 
aHoc  6'£}>ri[j.aTt  (TscrQ-at 

See  Eph.  6  ;  5.  It  is  important,  however,  to  note  here  the  possible 
reference  to  I  Pt.  2  ;  12  in  Tit.  2  ;  8. 

(8)  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  Tit.  2 ;  5 

yuvoixs?  'jT.'j-cc'j(j6\).f^o!.i  toT;  iBioic      u7ioira(7(70[jiivai;  toTi;  IBioi?  avSpactv 
avBpacriv 

An  equally  tlose  parallel  is  seen  in  Eph.  5  ;  22,  yet  the  sequence 
here  is  suggestive. 

(9)  I  Pt.  8 ;  3  -  4  Tit.  2 ;  3 

6v  lo--(o  o'j/  6  £cco9cV  .  .  .  oOX  6      7:p£0-(3uTiBac  wa-a'j-toc  Iv  y.%-:%fj-f- 
y.^oTZ-bc  — ^c  xapBia?  avQ-ptoTuoc  .  .  .      [J.aTi  t£p07cp£X£T(;  .  .  . 

Cf.  I  Tim.  2  ;  9  and  Rom.  2  ;  29. 

(10)  I  Pt.  3 ;  21  Tit.  3 ;  5 

S!,£0-w&>r,(7av  Bi'  'jSaxo?  6  xai  6[j.a?  ectwo-ev  Y][J.ac,  Bta  lo'JTpoO  xaliYT^- 

avTLTUT^ov  vQv  aoj^Et  (3a7CTi.a-[j.a,  o'j  vtainc,  v.oli  avaxaivo)(7£0)5  7:v£!J[j.a-oc 

(Tapxoi;  aTroO'Edti;  puTrou  aT^Xa  ct-jvei-  o^yto'j 
BYJaso)!;  ayaQ^-^c  s7C£pwTYi[j.a 

The  thought  is  much  the  same  though  the  wording  is  ver>  dif- 
ferent. Eph.  5  ;  26  is  also  a  close  parallel.  The  context  is  more  in 
harmony  with  Romans  and  Ephesians,  yet  parallels  1,  6,  and  12 
suggest  dependence. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  465 

(11)                          IPt.  4;2  Tit.  2;  12 

dc,  TO  p|/iTi    avQ-pc6~o)v    s-iO-ujji-  TzaiSsoouaa  r.ij.a?,  tva  apvY,(7a[j.£voi 

at?,  alia  &-slT,SJ.aTt  Bsoti  tov  £-t-  Tr,v    acrs[3£iav    xai    toc-    xoffixivca? 

loiTiov  £v  crapxl  piwcrai  Xp''>^^>v  l7:iQ-jij.iac,    crwcppovoK   xal   Bixaico: 

Xa\     £'J(7£[icoC     ^T,'70)[J.£V     £V     TW     VOV 

aioivi 
This  thought  may  be  paralleled  in  other  Pauline  Epistles,  yet  the 
sequence  here  is  suggestive.     Cf.  Exs.  2,  4,  6,  and  12. 

(12;)  IPt.  4;  3  Tit.  .S;  3 

ap£KT6c  yap  y.ij.Tv    6  7;ap£}.r,7.'j0-o);      y,[j.£v  yap  r^o'z  Y.%i  y,ix£T;  avoY-oi, 
.  \  .  £iB(.)}vola-p{atc  a7:£i'j£Tc  .  .  .  oOJ:f\ko'j(; 

Cf.  Gal.  5  ;  21,  Rom.  13  ;  13,  Eph.  2  ;  2,  3. 

(13,  I  Ft.  5;  2  Tit.  1  ;  7,  11 

(j.-/]B£  al(7/pox£pBo)?  £7ii<7x07:ov  .  .  .  [J.Y;    al(7ypox£pBo  .  .  . 

aiaypou  XEpBouc  /.apiv 

This  parallel  is  of  very  little  consequence. 

(14)  IPt.  5;  3  Tit.  2;  7 

-'jTM  Yiv6ij.£voi  TOO  7:ot[j.vio'j  TsauTov  7:ap£/6iJ.£vo:  T'J7:ov  xaltov 

Ipycov 

Though  similar  exhortations  occur  elsewhere,  xa/.oiv  Epywv  re- 
minds one  of  our  author's  emphasis  on  "  good  works." 

Holtzmann  sees  a  parallel  between  I  Pt.  1  ;  3-5  and  Tit.  3  ;  4-7, 
(Handcommentar  III,  p.  110).  Many  other  minor  hkenesses  exist, 
but  they  are,  in  the  main,  such  as  are  common  in  the  Pauline  lite- 
rature. 

Obviously,  these  parallels  afford  but  little  evidence  for  literary 
dependence,  since  many  of  those  given  above,  however  close,  are 
not  peculiar  to  these  Epistles.  The  general  structure  of  Titus,  as 
Holtzmann  notes,  is  more  suggestive  than  the  separate  passages. 
But  this  cannot  be  conclusive,  for  it  too  has  much  in  commom  with 
other  Epistles  upon  which  we  have  more  reason  to  suppose  our 
Epistle  depends. 

The  underscored  text  of  I  PETER  on  the  following  pages  will 
show  at  a  glance  the  probable  influence  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 
upon  our  Epistle. 


466  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

The  dotted  line  ( )  shows  the  points  of  contact  with  Romans  ; 

the  black  line  ( )  calls  attention  to  the  parallels  with  Ephesians  ; 

the  broken  line  ( )  represents  all  the  other  points  of  contact 

between  I  Peter  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  (not  found  in  Romans 
or  Ephesians). 

The  lines  in  italic  show  the  possible  influence  of  Hebrews  upon 
I  Peter. 

MARKED  TEXT  SHOWIISIG  POSSIBLE  SOURCES 

1  nETPOS    a7r6(7To}«oc  TYjcroO   XptcrToO    ivXzv.'xotc   Tcaps-iB-qj-oi;  Biac- 
Tcopa?   IlovTOu,    Toik'x-iixc.^    l\'x-7:aBo/iac.    "Xaiy-c    /.sci    BiOuvia?,    xara 

2  zpoyvcociv    0£oO    zaTpoc,    sv    ayi^Tp-w     7:v£'J[j.airoc    sic     ii~<x/.ory     xal 
qavciOf^iov  a'i/jaroc  ^h]Oov  XqkSvov'  /apic  ^jijIv  xai  dor^Yt]  i{kfpw^-zir^. 

3  E'j}.0YrjT6c    6  ^zhc    xai    r.y.'zr^^    -rjj    yjj^iou    r,ij.fov   ^h^ryjo    XpiTToO, 

6    xaTa    TO   izoX'J    a-jTOU    sAsoc    fuvf/f ri'/^wi;?   ///'"c   f/c  {■J.nida    i^waav 

4  Bi    avKCfacTctoc  TrjTOLi  XpiTToti   £x  vsxpcov,    zlc  xArjQOVvi^iiav  aqd^a^TOV 

5  xa^  dfjittvior  xai   dfiugaiTor,  TETfjCTjuivTiV  sv  o'jp7.voTc  s?;   'jij.a?   tou? 
£v    ()'jvaij.£i    Hso'j    oco!jpo'j[J.£vo'jr    Bta    -ittsoj;     zlc     moz-f^^Ay:/     £-:oi[j.t,v 

H  axoxa}.uoO-/]vai,   sv   xaipco   zg/ol-m.     h'  o)  dyak/uviaiye^  6/J/mv  ccqti  el 
dkov  Xvnr^iyivTeg  ev  noixi'/.oic  jTeiQaofiocg^  ivoc  to  Boxtij.iov  'j[j.a)v  tyJij 

7  ■7:iGr:zioc,  TcoX'JTiij.drep&v  ypuciou  toD  a-o}J.L»[jivov  Bia  Tr^jpor  ?)£  Boxt[j.a- 

8  'Coixivjo    z'j%zbr\  zlc  e-atvov  xai  B6?av  xai  Ti[j.r,v    sv  a7:oxaA'j'j»£i  TrjO-o^i 
XciaTOii.     6v  o'jx  iBovTsc  aY^c^aTs.  i-ig  u'  dori  f^iij  oqmvt&c  maifvovTsg 

9  Bs    aYa7.1iaTs    /apa   " 0(.'^zyS/.cO:r^-o)    xai    BsSofaTijivr,.   zu/u'Co/ifroi  t.'> 

10  rfcAoc  r^?  niaieoog  aon't]Qiuv    Wvxmv.     Hspi    r,c    g-ojTTjpia;   zizX,r^-r\ay.'/ 

11  xai  s^TjpauvTjTav  7:po<p-^Tai  oi  ;:spi  t-J^c  sic  'jij-ac  yy.'^A'rjc  -po'j^TjTsuaavTSC, 
spauvcov-s?    SIC    Tiva    Yj    ^^oiov    xatpov    sBtjXoo    to    sv    a'JToT?    nvevfxa 

12  Xqiccov  TTQOiiiaQivQoinevov  la  slg  Xqiotov  nai^Tq/naTa  xal  rag  jusrcl 
ravra  So'^ac'  olg  dnsxaXvff^ri  or/  ovx  eavrolg  vf.uv  de  dirfxoYovr 
avrd.  a  vUv  6Lyr{^'^Q:ri  'j[j.Tv  Bia  twv  suaYY^Aiaajj-svcov  'j[j,ac  Ttvsup-aTt. 
ayito  a7:o(7-a};£VTi  cciz    oupavoO,  sic  a  S7:i!>u[xo0criv    (h(^z'krji   7:apaxu'j»ai. 

1,3       Aio  ava^waajj-svoi  Tac  OT'-puac  ty]c  Biavoiac  !J[j.o)v,    vrpoyzzc  'zz'kzmc. 

zXr^iGOL-zz  £711  TTjV  ospoijivTjV   'jij.Tv  /apiv  sv   a-oxay.'Josi  TyiTOj  XpiTToQ. 

14  cbi;  T£xva  'j^axo'^c,  [J.r,  <7'jv<7/;rj[J.a-:i^6u.£voi  TaTc  TcpoTspov  sv    ttj    aj^^^ 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  'SI 

15  •jij.oiv    s~iGu[jiaic,    aXXa    xarx    tov    xalsaavTa    "jij-a?    ayiov    /.yA  aoTol 


18  t'/t/wv    xoo'iw   dvaarocupjh-      zl'ho^zc,    oti    o'j    ciOa^cToTr,     apyypuo    r, 
/pucriw,  8XvrQo'ji^t]ie  Ix,  — ^;  [j.aTaia(;  'jij.wv  avaTTpocp-^;  r.y-zozy.zv^o-'-j'j, 

19  a}.}^a    Ti/(i(p     (Uftaii     ok    dfivov     ic/koiiov     y.ai     da^i/.or     Xoiaiov. 

20  7TQ08Yvo)()f.tiirov    /ner    ttqo    y.aia^oAr^z    xoGf^iov,    cfavfowO^fvioc    6e  in* 

21  8a%i'i0v    iwr    xoonov    6i^    i/id?    '''yjc    ?)'-'   ySj~ou  "iTTOor  sir  (-)oov   /or 


22  8)'f:i{)('.)'ia  avior  tx  )'8XQun'  xal  dc'^av  aino)  Sovja.  coa-z  tt.v  -(ctiv 
uawv  xai  sATiiBa  sTvat,  si?  Bsov.  Tocc,  (foy^occ,  6[j.wv  T^yvizoTo?  sv  tt, 
OTia/wO^  TY]?  aXY]8'2ia5  si?  (ptX(xBs}.oiav  avuxoxpiTov  sx  xapBiac  SuS/.r'/.'j'jc. 

23  ayazY^Ta-re    sxtsvwc,    avaysysvvrj[jiv&t    oux    sx    aTuopac    cpO-apTTj?    aA}.a 

24  ao!j-apToi>,  Bia  Aoyou  ^ojvtoc  (':)s&S  xal  [j-evovtoc"     Bioti 

rcaTa  ^ap^  ox:  yopTo?, 

xai  ^racra  Bo'^a  auTYj?  w?  avO-oc  yopTO'j' 
E^YjpavQ-r]  6  /^opTo?, 

xai  TO   avO'O?  Ei£7:£a"sv. 
II.      TO  Bs  p-^[j.a  Kuptou  [isvsi,  si?  tov  aicova.     to-jto   Bs   s<jTIv   to  ^%[i.y. 
TO     s'j(xyys}.i0"9'sv    sic    6[j.ar.      linoO^i'/^^itm/     ovr    rrccdav    xaxiar    xa\ 

2  -6i.v-y.    %6'krjy    xal   67r6xpt'7iv   xal    cpOovo'j?   xal    -yayc.    7.y-y'LyJxy.i,    wc 
dgiiyivrrjiK    I^Qtqr^    ro   /.oyixoi'    udo/.ov    yd/xt    l-7ii:io'J^^(iarf .    hy.    sv 

3  auTw    afj^YjQTjTs    si?    cro)T-r]p{av,    /■/   ty8vc;aal>8    on    /o*/f>/«^'   o    xvoioc. 

4  7:po?  ov  ;:poG'sp/6ij.svoi,  XiO'Ov  toJvTa,  6x6  avS'pwTcwv  [xsv  a-oBsSoxiiJ.aT- 

5  uivov    ::apa    Bs    (")soj    sxIsxtov    svti'J.ov    xal    aijTol    o)?    "aiLoi    ''f-ivTS? 


()/xf)dof^isTai)fi    oixoq     nvivnttTr/.oQ     si?    ispaTEtj[j.a     ayiov,     dt'f-vhyxai 
(;  ni'&vfAaiixdc,  Ovaiac  eirnQoadhxiavc  6>fo>  J/ti  ^Jy]aov  XQinrov'     Bwti 

iizpizyzi  sv  ypacpY] 

'IBotj  TiQ>Yi[xi  SV  Hkov  >.it>ov  sxAsxTOv  axpoytoviaTov  svTtfj.ov, 
xal  6  TiKTTS'jfov  st:    a-jTO)  o'j  [J-Y]  xaTaio-^uvS-Y,. 
7  'J[wv  o3v  -J]  TijjT,  ToT?  T^iG-TstJOUTiv  a7ci(7Toy(7iv  Bs  /iO-0?  ov  a-sSoxiij-aTav 
S  01  oixoBojJLOuvTs?  o^iTO?  sysv/iOTj  SI?  xs'^a}.Y,v  y(.)via?  xal  liO'O?  ::poT/.o;j.- 


I 


468  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

9  £15   0   xai   sTsO'Tjo-av.      t^'f^c  Bs  ysvo?  sxT^sxtov,  ^aalXetov  leQccisviJa, 
e^voc   ayiov,    Mwc    ftc    ntQinoiTqan'^    o/rwc   Tcic    aQSrag   siayyf^iXtiiE 

10  ror    £X    (TXOTOU?    ujj.ac    y.oiXic^ccvxoc    zlq   to    Q^auaaa^ov  auToD  ©c5c"     ol' 
TTOTS  0!j  }.aoc  vtiv  Bs  Xabc,  ©sou,  ol  ocix  T,7v£Y]^svoi  vOv  Bs   slsyiO-avTS?. 

11  'AyaTCrj-roi,  Tuapaxalw  wg  naQoiaovg  xai  na^emdr^iiiovg  axs/saQ-ai 
Tcov    aacxixwv,  £7uiO'U[J.icov,   ai-tvsc    o-TpaTS'JovTai  xa-a   tTjC  'j^'J/.^'    '^'^j^ 

12  ava(7Tpo<pYjV    6[j.wv    sv    roTc    sO'veaiv    s/ovtsc   xaATjv,    iva,  sv  to  xaraT^a 
.   AoQaiv  'jiJ-wv  (oc  xaxoTCOifiiv,  £x  twv  xa}^ojv  Ipyoiv  Ixotttsuovtsc  Bo^acro)(7t 

Tov  Q-sov  £v  rj[jipa  s-ioxott^i;. 

TTioTayYjTs  TraTTj  avO'ptomvY)  xticsi.   Bia   tov  x'jpiov    zXxz  paciT^sT  w? 

13  OTCSpS/OVTl,      SITS      Tjysp.OG'lV      CO?      Bl'      aUToD      "SiJ-TCOljivOtC      SIC      SX^lXTjCtV 

14  xaxoTcouov   £-aivov    8s  ayaD^oxotwv     (oti   o'jtco?  s(7i:lv    to  O-sXyjiJ-a  toQ 

15  Hso3.  ayaO-OTTOioyvTa?  cpi,[j.oTv  tTjV  twv  acppovcov  avB-poi-tov  ayvcocriav)  w? 
sXsuO'spoi.,  xa\  [j.-?i  wc  £7:ixaAu[j.jj.a  £70vt£c    tt,?  xaxia;   ty]v  £}v£!jO-£piav, 

16  a}vA    (oc    (-)£0J    Bo!j},oi.     -avTac    Tiu/r^G-aTS,    Tr,v    aBsAcpOTTjTa    ayaTcaTS, 

17  TOV  Q>£6v  cpopsTcrO'S,  tov  (iao-Oia  tuxSts.      <  )i  oixst^i  G-OTaTO-oij-svot,  sv 

18  7:avT't    o6[i(o    toT?    ^zG~6~cac,    otj    [j.ovov    ToTr    ayaO-oTc    xai    sxisixsatv 
aXXa    xai    toTc    ctxoXioT;.      toDto    yap    /apic    si    8ia    (jUvstBrjTiv  0£on 

19  'jTuoospsi  Tie  I'jTia;  7waG-/(ov  aBixojc-     ::oTov  yap  xlsoc  si  oiixapTavovTs; 

20  >^ai  xoAaoit6[j.£voi   ■jtco[j.£V£Tts  ;    a}.A    £i    ayaO'O'oiouvTsc   xoi   TvaT/^ovTSC 
•j7;o[j.svsrTS,  TOJTO  /api?  7:apa  0sco.     sk  toijto  yap  £xlrjQ<Y]T£,  (in  xai 

21  XQiarog   e/r«^ev   tVe^*    vfiaiv,    i'ltuv    vnohf^indron'    vTroyqafii^ov   iva 
£7:axo>.ouS'Tj(rfjT£  toT;  i/v£'jIv  auTOJj*     oc  df^iaqriav  ovx  anohjafv   ouBs 

22  s'jp£8-/]  B67.0C   £v  TO)    cToij-aTi  auToO*     og  koi^OQOvf^ievog  ovx  mnsXoi- 

23  doQei^    vaG-/o)v    oix    Tj7:£iX£1,    7:ap£BiBou    Be    tco    xpivovTi    Bixaiw?*     oc 

24  T«g   (xjiiaQilag    ij/iion'   avxog   dt'tjvsyxev   fr   rw   aioiiazi    avrov   iiii  to 
c6}^ov,    I'va   TaTc    aij.apTiair    a7:oysv6ij.svoi   tt,   Bixaioauvr)   ^r,(7to[xsv     oO 

25  T(o  ij.c6}>co7:i  lab-TjTs.     YjTs  yap  oj?  7:p6(3aTa  7:7.ava)[j.£voi,  oiXkcc  ETCscTpa- 
OT,T£  vOv  Itti  tov  Tioifxtva  xai  snCaxoTiov  rm'  ipv^oHv  vfUMV.      0[j.oiO)i; 

III  yjvaTxsr  'jTroTacTTO'j.Evai  toTc  iBioi?  avBpaTiv,  iva  £i  TiV£5  oazzib-ooGiy  tw 
2  }.6y(o   Bia   tTjC   tcov   yjvaixcov   avacTTpocpTjC    av£tj    'koyoD   x£j3Brj8'YjcrovTai 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  469 

5  xocjjt-oc,  a}^X'  6  xpurToc  ~r,c  xapBta;  avD'po)::o;  Iv  to>  acpO-apTO)  Toti 
TjTuyiou   xai   Tcpascoc   7:v£Uij.aTo;,    o  Ittiv    bmr^iov  tou  BsoO  T:o7jjzz).i:;. 

6  o3to)c  yap  tcots  xal  ai  aytai  yjvaTy.sc  a[  sATzt^o'jaat  sic  O-eov  sxoTaouv 
lauirac,  u;:oTa(7(76[X£vai  toTi;  t?^iotc  avBpaTiv,  coc  llaoca  'j7:r,xou£v  Toi 
'A[jpaa[j.,  xypiov  atj-rov  yyOMGT.-     r^c    sysvy/j-Tj"    7£xva    ayaO'Cz-oio^iTai 

7  y.oCi  [iji]  cpo(3oy[JL£vai,  [j-7]B£[jiav  --Jytfiiu.  ( )[  avSp£5  6[xoio)g  t'jvoixo'jvtsc 
xaxa  yvwcTiv,   w?  aaO'SVSTTEpo)  'jX£'J£f.  tw  yjvaiXEU.)  a-ovsaovTor  Ttar;/, 

8  w?   xoi    avvxlriQOVoiiioi    x^^^qitoq     'iorfji,     zlc,    to    [j.-?)    syxoT^ToO-bai    Tac 

9  xpo(7£U/a5  u[j.wv.  To  Be  xzXoc  xavTE^  oij.ocppovs?,  cuu-TcaS-sT?,  ot7.aS£}.Q0i, 
£'j(77r}vayyvot,  TaTCsivocppovsc.  [j.y]  aTroBiBovTs:  xaxc/v  avTi  xaxoti  r, 
XoiBopiav  avTi  loiBopCa?  zouyxv'io'/  Se  £'j}«oyouvT£c,  oti  sic  to^Ito 
£x7vYiOrjT£  tva  evAoyiar  xX^QOvof^ir^atiTf. 

10  6  yap  b'Elcov  ^tor,v  ayaxav 

xai  iBsTv  Yi[j.£pa?  ayaO-a^ 
TiaucraTTco  ty]v  y^.w^Tav  a7;6  xaxou 
xai  /£i)vY]  ToO  [xy;  XaCkr^Goci  Bolov. 

11  ixxXivdcTO)  Be  olt^o  xaxoU  xai  7:oiYj'7a-o)  ayaB-ov, 

CriiriGccco)  slgrivr^r  xai  Siw'^aio  avti^v. 

12  OTi  6(p8>a>.[j-oi  KuptoD  Itci  Bixaiouc 

xai  coTa  a^JTOtJ  £ic  BstjCTIv  auToiv, 

7i;p6'70)7:ov  Bs  K-jpiou  STd  Troicrijv'^a?  xaxa. 

13  Kai  TIC  6  xaxoicwv   uij.a;;  lav  tou  ayaO-oO  (^Yi}.o)i:ai  /svTjTU-e;  a).}'   £1 

14  xai    Tcaa/oiTs    Bia    BixaiOT^jvTjV,    [xaxapioi.    tov    Be    (p6(3ov    atj-wv    [j.y, 
zio^r^bri-zz    [j.YjBe   I7apa/^Q'Y;T£,    xtjpiov    Ss    tov  XpiTTOv  ayiao-aTo  Iv  TaTc 

15  xapBiaic    'jij.oiv,    sttoiixoi   a£i   7:p6c   aT^o').o'^iy.'/   -avTi   tw    aJToOvTi    -jpiac 
>.6y&v    ::£pi    tyjc    Iv    uplv   £}.toBo;,    aD.a   ij.£Ta   7:pa'JTr,T-oc   xai    o6|3oo, 

IG  ovvf^idr^oiv  evovreg  dyaOrjV.,  Ira   sr  <w   xaia'/.a/.Haiye  xaiaiaxw^oiair 

17  ot  enriQed^oviei;  vf-iwv  ti]v  dyai^r]v  ir  Xqkjko  ch'a(jT()u(jtjr.     xpsTrrov 
yap  ayaO'OTZoiouvTa?  £i  0-sloi  to  'j-£}>Yj[j.a  to3  BsolJ,  -aT/siv  y,  xaxao- 

18  TiOiouvTac.       oTi     ;t«/     XQiOiog     ana'^    TifQi     c'cfHcoiton'    ihn'O^avf-): 
Bixaio?  UTisp  aBixojv,    Yva   vficcg   ngoaaydyr^  lo)  &f-o).    0 avaT(»0£ic  ij.ev 


470  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

19  Tapxi   "^oiO'KoijpzK;   Bs   Tuvsujj-airr    sv   w   xai   toTc   ev    <ptj}.ax^  Twsyp-aatv 

20  7rop£u&>£i(;   £xr,pu'£sv,    axstQ-r^cracrtv    tzots    ots    a-scsBs/sTO    yj    -oO    ©sou 
[xaxpoQ>ujj.ia  £1-  ijfii-Qaig  iVo7f  ianaax6va^of.ibn]Q  xi^onov  ek  tjv  ukiyoi.^ 

21  toSt     ec/ir    o;fT(ij    xpviai^    difa(6i)rjaav    t>i     uSaTOc.      o    x«<,    vfj.ag 
dvTbivnov   vT'V    aoKf-i    ^anTiai^ia    ov    aa^xog   ctTroiftoig   ^vnov    ak'ka 

22  av)'f-idiir)fo)g    dya^^fi    tiiri-Qunripa    dg    Ssov,    Bt,'     dcvaaTaa-scoc   'lYjcrou 
Xptc-Toti,  og  iaiiv  ^v  d&'^in  &sov  no^evi/elg  elg  ovQctror  vnoraytvroiv 

IV  avxio  uyytXmv  xai  t'^uva/wr  xai    dvvuii&iov.      XpiTToS    ouv    -aOovTor 

2  capxi   xal    'jijxT?   v?iv    atJ-TjV    h'voiav    OTuAiTacD'S,    oTt    6    :ia0'wv    aaTT/a 

"sTcajjTai  a[j,apxiaic,  si?  to  ir/ixsTt  avOpojTKov  £XtSu[jiaic  a}.7.a  ^eXij^ati 

•^  Of ot~  Tov  £7:Q;oi7rov  £v  crapxi /:?/wo'«/ ypovov.     apxsTOi;  yap  6  7:ap£>."/]Xu0^wc 

yyjvoc    TO     [ioy}.rj[j,a     twv     eO'vojv     xa':£tpYa(70-ai,     7C£7^op£tj[jivou?     Iv 

a(7£>>Y£ia!,c,    £7i:!,iJ''j[jiair,    oivocp^uy^aic,    xo')[xoic.    ttotoi?,    xai    aD'£[jiTotc 

■1  £i<>o)Ao}.aTpiai,?.     Ev  (0  '££vi^ovTai  [j.r,  CDVTps/ov-rwv   !j[j.wv  £ic  tt^v  auTr^v 

5  Trjc    a(j(.)Tia5    ava/ua"iv,    [3}i.aG'O*ri[jL0!JVT£C"      oV    d/iodwcovciiv    '/.oyov    tw 

6  ST01U.C0?    xptvovTt    TwvTac    xai    v£xpo'Jr      tic    tovito    yap    xai    vsxpoT? 

t\jT{'p[z)lGb-'f\  I'va  xpiO-oicri  [j.£v  xaTa  av8pto-o'jr  crapxi  ^wti  <^£  xa-ra 
0£ov  77y£yij.aTi. 

7  Ilavio)V   Se    10   rtkog    t'lyyixf^t:     TcoopovY^TaTs    o3v   xai   vrj'LaT£   si? 

8  ~^oriz'jyo(.c'     7:po  ::avTO)v   ty,v  f/c  saviovg  dydrrrp'  &y.i£vri  zy^ovreg,  OTt, 

9  aYa;rri    xaA'J7v-£i    7;X"^Q'0?    ajj-apTioiv      ifikoiavoi     fig    dXh]Aovg    hjz'j 

10  yoYY^'^'P"^'^'     s'/taTTOC  xaS-toc  sXaSsv  /apiTij.a,  sic  la'jTouc  auTo  Biaxo- 

11  VOIJVT£C    (OC    y.OUM     0lX0v6[J.0l    rrOlXl/.Tj?    /apiTO?    (")£0!J*       £1    TIC    la},£T,    coc 

XoY^a  ©soti*  si'  Ti?  BiaxovsT,  w?  It  layuoc  ■f\c,  yoizr\yzi  6  (")£6?'  iva 
£v  ::a(7iv  BocatYjTat  6  Oeoc  Bia  'IyjO-ou  XpiTToD,  w  «0Th'  »)  66'^a  xai 
to  '/.QUTog  eig  rove  ahovcg   iwv  iuojI'ojv.     d/Jiji'. 

12  Wyv.T.r^T'jX,    [j.y,    cEvitETO-s    tyj    Iv    'jijIv    7;opc6o"£t   TCpo?   7:£ipao"[J.6v    yijlv 

13  Ytvop-svYj  o)c  i£vo'j    'j[j.Tv    crufj.paivovToc,  aA7.a  xaO-6  xoivcovsTts  toIc,  toD 
XpicTToO   xa9'Y,tj,a(jiv   y_aipsTs,    iva    xai    sv   tt]    aTioxaludtsi    ty,c    BoHy^c 

1-1  auTOU    /apYjTs    aYa).};ioi[j,svoi.      ft    6)'6idi^€Gi)^e   sv   ovo/naTt    Xotaiov, 

paxagioi.  oti  to  tYjC  B6'cy,c  xai   to  toS  0so!j    :wsu[J.a   s©     6[j-ac    ava- 

15  xa'JsTai.   [j;?]  y*^?  '^I'?   'j[J-wv  -aT/sTW  wc  oovs'jc  y)  xT^st^tyjc  y;  xaxoxoioc 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  471 

!<>  r,  wr  aA},OTpi£~0T/-o~o;.  si  Sk  Coc.  XpiTTiavor,  [j.r,  y.iT/'jvsTuoj,  Sofa'^eTo* 
17  Be  Tov  (■)sov  £v  tco  ovoixaTi  tootco.  oti  [6|  v.yxyji  too  ap'^aTO-ai  to 
xpi^a  cmo  ror  or;fo/'  /or  (')(^or  z\  Bs  "pwTOv  ao'  '^([J-wv.  ti  to 
TS7.0C  Tcov  a:;;£iO'0'JvT(-)V  tw  tou  (")$otj  o-jayY^^-^f;* ;  ''-^•'  s?  6  Bi/.a'.or 
[iMXic,  acouSTai,  6  [Be]  aasj^r,;  vsA  a[j.x;:Tco}.6$  ::oD  cpavelTai ;  oWto  xai 
01  rArriyi'tt  xaToc  to  &'£}.r,|j.a  too  (-)£otj  rrtTTw  xTiaTT,  -apaT!,6-£'7'j(')'7av 
Tac  'ify/y-c.  h  aysca-o-oaa. 
Y  npcG-jj'jTspoD?  o3v  £v  'j[j.Tv  "apazaloj  6  o-'jv:;:p£'7J3'jT£po;  xai  [j.aoTU? 
Tojv  TOO  XpicTou  xa&'Yi[j,aT(ov,    6   xai    tyjc   a£X}vOoa7]?    axoxaX'JTZTS'jO'a!, 

2  BocY);  xoivtovoi?,  7i;ot[xavaT£  to  £v  'jij.Tv  -oi[j.viov  too  B£Oo,  [J-t,  avayxaTTcoi; 

3  oc}Aa  sxoucicoc,    [j.y,B£  ai'7/j:ox£j;Bwc  i<}.la  ;:poQ"J[j.oK,  [j;f,B'    mc  xaTaxu- 

4  pt£UOVT£C  Tcov  xATj^O)'/  a}.}.a  T'j-oi  Y!,v6ij.£voi  TOO  "oiij-vioo"  xal  oav£':oj- 
L)£VTO?     roT     uQimoiii&voc     xo[j.!,£T'jO£    tov    aaapavTivov     ri/c     ^o6^r^c 

h  oTfif/rn'or.  '0[j.ow-jc,  v£toT£po!..  OTUOTaYTjTS  7cp£a-|jOT£poi$.  riavT£;  8k 
yjJ:'r^lSj'.z  tt;/  Ta-sivoopoTOvrjV  £Yxoij.[jo')'jac7U'£,  OTt  [6]  0£6c  'j-£pTjOavo'-; 
avTrnracro-STai  TaxscvoTc  Be  BiBcotiv  /apiv. 

■6       Ta7:£i,va)&"Y]T£    ouv    ut^o    ty]v    xpaTaiav    /sTpcc    too    0£oo,    iva    o[j.ar 

7  ocjjwc-f,  £V  xaipfi),  TTacav  ttjv  [jiptij.vav  opov  £7;ipi'J>avT£c   It:    aoTOv  o// 

8  aviM  i^iiAsh   negl   vf.im'.     Nr/jjaTE,    y^jrpfo^riGcc^z.     6    avTiBixo?    o[j.fov 

9  Biajjoloc  wc  /iwv  wpo6[j.£vo?  T.zy-.y.zzX  Zr-O)'/  x7.Ta-!,£Tv  to  avTto-Tr,T£ 
Gzzzzoi  TTj  -iTTEt,  tldoi&c  xu  avTO.  1  GiV  na^r^iiuiitiv  tij  sv  tco  xotij.o) 

10  oacov  dd&lffonjii  suiTSAsTaltai.  'O  de  0foc  ttwotjc  ^«^^^f^£-__2 
y,ix\iGy.c   'j[J.oi^  zlc,  -zry  aicovtov  aoTOo  Bocav  Iv  XpiTToi,  dXr{oy  ^^cO'OVTa; 

11  aoTO?    xuTaQTtGSi.     G-rr^piczi,     (jb-zvoinzi.      aoTw    to     xptxTo;    zlc,    too? 

12  Aia  IiAooavoo  ojjIv  too  ttittoo  aB£}s900,  w;  7.oy"''^'^1-'-^''  ^''  '^'^'V''^'' 
eyQuil'a,   ^apaxocicov   xal   l7:i,[j-apTopcov    TaoTr,v    £!,vai  a>.TjD'rj  /apiv  too 

13  0£oo-  zlc  -fiy  o-TrjT£.     \4aTTCiCf^Tia  rifdc  /j  Iv  Ba|3o}.o)Vi  (70V£x7v£XTr,  xai 
11  ]\Iapxoc    6    ooo?    [J.00.  '"AGTrdaaaii^    d/.ktjXovg    &v    ^/.^■i*f«^(....«y^.^.?/.^'; 

Eicr,vr,   oulv  TraTtv  toT;  iv   Xoitto). 


472  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

DEPENDENCE  OF  I  PETER  UPON  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES 

(A) 
Supporting  Considerations 

Zahn   maintains,    with   others,    that    the   churches   addressed   in 

I  Pt.  1  ;  1  were  not  in  existence  long  enough  before  Paul  penned  his 
letter  to  the  Romans  to  permit  of  its  dependence  upon  our  Epistle. 
"  According  to  the  testimony  of  his  own  letters  and  of  Acts,  Paul 
was  the  missionar}^  who,  in  the  sense  of  Rom.  15;  20,  I  Cor.  3  ;  10, 

II  Cor.  10  ;  15,  laid  the  foundations  of  Christianity  in  all  this  region  " 
(Zahn  Int.  II,  p.  135).  "  The  supposition  that  Paul  found  in  Eph- 
esus  or  Iconium  Christian  Churches  already  organised  or  even  indi- 
vidual Christians,  is  contrary  to  the  evidence  of  all  existing  sources 
of  information."  (ibid.)  "  Regarding  the  founding  of  the  churches 
in  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  and  Bithynia,  regions  which  Paul  did  not 
visit  personally,  we  have  no  information.  But  it  is  probable  that 
in  these  provinces  .  .  .  the  gospel  was  preached  somewhat  later,  but 
practically  under  the  same  conditions  "  (ibid.  p.  136).  "  Nor  were 
the  provinces  evangelized  by  persons  from  these  districts,  who  heard 
the  preaching  at  Pentecost.  It  must  be  remembered  that  these  hear- 
ers were  not  pilgrims  to  the  feast,  who,  after  the  feast,  returned  to 
the  lands  of  their  birth,  but  Jews  from  abroad  residing  in  Jeru- 
salem "   (ibid.  p.  138). 

Jiilicher  also  contends  that  "  Paul  would  not  have  begun  his 
missionary  work  in  Galatia  and  Asia  if  flourishing  Christian  commu- 
nities had  already  been  founded  there  under  the  influence  of  Peter, 
as  we  should  be  obliged  to  assume  from  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  ff."  (Int.  p.  211). 
The  same  author  argues  that  :  "  (a)  the  independence  asserted  by 
Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  becomes  a  grievous  delusion, 
since  he  would  have  owed  not  only  the  kernel  of  his  Gospel  but  even 
his  epistolary  style  to  Peter  ;  (b)  he  must,  contrary  to  his  principles, 
have  worked  upon  a  field  over  which  Peter  had  prior  rights  ;  (c)  the 
history  of  the  Apostolic  times  becomes  an  absolute  riddle,  for  we 
should  find  Peter,  who  had  just  been  publicly  rebuked  by  Paul  at 
Antioch  (Gal.  2  ;  11  f.)  for  exercising  a  moral  pressure  towards 
Judaism  upon  Gentile  Christians,  writing  immediately  afterwards 
to  Christian  communities  in  a  manner  by  which  it  might  be  supposed 
that  such  a  thing  as  a  written  norm  for  the  social  conduct  of  mankind 
— the  Law — did  not  exist  :  that  he  knew  only  of  Christians,  not  of 
Jewish  or  Gentile  Christians  ;  and  (d)  we  should  be  forced  to  admit 
that  Peter  already  possessed  everything  in  Paul's'  teaching  which 
helped  to  form  the  common  Christian  consciousness." 


First  Epistle  oj  Peter.  473 

McGiffert,  as  against  Weiss,  claims  :  "  There  is  no  other  early 
Christian  document,  by  another  hand  than  Paul's,  whose  Paulinism 
can  begin  to  compare  with  that  of  I  Peter.  There  can  be  no  mista- 
king the  fact  that  the  author  was  a  Pauhnist,  that  his  Gospel  was  the 
Gospel  of  Paul,  and  that  his  mind  was  saturated  with  Paul's  ideas  " 
(Apos.  Age,  p.  485). 

Salmon  says  :  "  The  Paulinism  of  Peter's  Epistle  proceeds  be- 
yond identity  of  doctrine,  and  is  such  as  to  show  that  Peter  had 
read  some  of  Paul's  letters.  In  particular  the  proofs  of  his 
acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  are  so  numerous 
and  striking  as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  my  mind.  There  are  isolated 
coincidences  with  other  Pauline  Epistles,  but  it  is  with  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  that  the  affinity  is  closest.  There  are  several 
passages  in  Peter's  Epistle  which  so  strongly  remind  us  of  passages 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  that  the  simplest  explanation  of 
their  origin  is  that  they  were  suggested  to  the  writer  by  his  know- 
ledge of  Paul's  Epistles.  But  the  resemblance  is  often  merely  in  the 
thoughts,  or  in  the  general  plan,  without  any  exact  reproduction 
of  the  words.  We  might  conjecturally  explain  this  difference  by 
supposing  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  to  have  been  so  long  known  to 
St.  Peter  that  he  had  had  time  to  become  familiar  with  its  language, 
while  his  acquaintance  with  the  Ephesian  Epistle  was  more  recent/' 
For  his  argument  see  Introduction  p.  553  f. 

Bennett  and  Addeney  maintain  that  "  Peter  here  appears  as 
having  learned  more  from  Paul  than  from  Christ.  There  are  many 
allusions  to  some  of  Paul's  Epistles,  certainly  Romans  and  probably 
Ephesians  "   (Bib.  Int.,  p.  442). 

"  This  similarity  "—between  I  Peter  and  the  Pauline  epistles— 
"  certainly  is  traceable  and  is  of  a  kind  to  lead  us  to  suppose  an  ac- 
quaintance on  the  writer's  part  with  several  of  our  Pauline  epistles." 
Among  the  Pauline  epistles  which  the  Apostle  Peter  seems  to  have  had 
in  mind  in  writing  his,  were  those  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians." 
Bleek's  Int.  II,  p.  168  f. 

"  One  seeks  in  vain  in  this  supposed  work  of  Peter,  that  head 
of  Jewish  Christianity,  for  a  definite  distinctness  such  as  is  seen  in 
the  writings  of  Paul  and  John.  There  are  not  only  to  be  found 
in  it  reminiscences  of  the  Pauhne  Epistles,  which  the  author  without 
doubt  read,  but  also  the  doctrine  and  phraseology  are  essentially 
Pauline."     (De  Wette's  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  381.) 

Reuss,  after  giving  a  list  of  parallels  between  I  Peter  and  the 
Pauline  Epistles  notes  that  :  "  The  circumstance  that  two  epistles 


474  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

only  furnish  these  parallels  shows  that  the  coincidence  is  not  acci- 
dental."    (Hist,  of  the  N.  T.  p.  145.) 

Examples  like  the  above  might  be  multiphed  indefinitely,  but 
let  these  suffice.  Almost  any  N.  T.  Introduction,  or  Commentary 
on  I  Peter,  to  which  we  may  turn  will  contain  some  such  view  as 
these  cited  above.  That  is  to  say  the  overwhelming  weight  of 
scholarship  supports  the  claim  that  I  Peter  depends  upon  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  In  addition  to  the  authorities  cited  above,  we  may  also 
add  the  names  of  Bleek,  Credner,  Ewald,  Harnack,  Hug,  Hofmann, 
Lechler,  Mangold,  Pfleiderer,  Reuss,  Schmiedel,  Schmidt,  Schott, 
Sieffert,  Wellhausen,  etc.,  in  Germany  ;  Alford,  Bennett,  Davidson, 
Cook,  Farrar,  Plumptre,  Ramsay,  etc.,  in  England  ;  Loisey,  Monnier, 
etc.,  in  France  and  Bacon,  McGiffert,  etc.,  in  America. 

(B) 
Opposing  Considerations. 

As  has  been  noted  at  various  points  in  the  notes  on  the  parallels, 
B.  Weiss,  in  his  "  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff,"  has  said  about  all  that 
can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  dependence  of  Paul  upon  I  Peter.  He 
has  gained  so  small  a  following  that  we  need  not  discuss  his  position 
in  detail.  Practically  all  scholars  to-day  admit  that  I  Peter  contains 
a  later  stratum  of  thought  than  that  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
This,  of  course,  is  accounted  for  by  a  very  small  minority,  by  the 
theory  of  a  later  redaction.  (See  P.  Schmidt's  article  on  "  Zwei 
Fragen  zum  ersten  Petrusbrief,"  in  the  "  Zeitschrift  fiir  wissen- 
schaftliche  Theologie,"  1908,  p.  24—52.)  The  above  discussion 
assumes,  on  the  authority  of  the  greater  number  of  scholars,  the 
integrity  of  the  Epistle.  This  may  not  be  giving  due  consideration, 
either  to  the  "  partition  theory,"  proposed  by  Schmidt,  or  to  the 
claim  of  Pauline  dependence,  advocated  by  Weiss,  yet,  not  only 
the  evidence  afforded  by  the  223  parallels  given  above,  but  also 
the  consensus  of  scholastic  opinion,  seem  to  justify  an  apparently 
hasty  disposition. 

Some,  very  naturally,  question  "  Petrine  dependence,"  who  do 
not  advocate  the  reverse  relation,  e.  g.,  Bruckner,  Davidson,  Eadie, 
Huther,  Mayerhoff,  Ranch,  Ritschl,  Steiger,  etc.  A  few  of  the 
arguments,  which  are  advanced  against  the  view  of  Petrine  depen- 
dence, may  now  be  reviewed. 

It  is  urged  that  "  1  Peter  has  too  large  a  vocabulary  of  words 
peculiar  to  itself  to  depend  upon  Paul."  This  becomes  of  little  con- 
sequence, when  the  possibility  of  the  reverse  relationship  is  sug- 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


475 


gested.  It  would  be  much  more  difficult  to  account  for  the  abscence 
of  all  the  01  words,  which  are  pecuHar  to  I  Peter,  in  all  the  Pauhne 
Literature,  on  the  supposition  that  Paul  depends  upon  I  Peter, 
than  to  suppose  the  dependence  is  on  the  side  of  our  author. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  "  many  of  the  P«auline  expressions 
do  not  appear  in  the  Epistle."  This,  all  will  concede,  but  it  is  also 
important  to  note  that  the  book  does  contain  many  of  the  funda- 
mental expressions  of  Paul.  The  following  list  of  N.  T.  words,  which 
occur  in  I  Peter  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  only,  wiU  show  that  this 
objection  merits  but  little  consideration,  ayvwcia,  axpoyfovioioc, 
(iacoTia,  acpO-ap'^o?,  stBo^XoT^a'psia,  siTisp,  sito,  l^fx^ivco,  sTuaivoi;,  sixpoo'- 
bsxToc,  £ucr-}^aY/vo?,  vjc-tj/ioc,  v/yoc,  xaQo,  xa-ra7>a}aa,  x(o[j,oc,  Ioyixoc, 
}.otBopia,  Yr^Yj(,i.,  T.vzu[}.oi-v//jc,^  7:p6(r/:o[j.[j.a,  (jU<j/Y,[j.xTi'^0[j.ai,  TotJvavTiov, 
'jTisps/^co,  tj~0(p£po),  cpO'ap-QC,  (piXoisvoc,  cppoupeo),  y^api(7[j.a,  yo^r^yio). 
Twenty- two  appear  only  in  I  Peter  and  the  generally  accepted 
Epistles  of  Paul ;  nine  more  are  found  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
making  a  total  of  thirty.  Several  more  appear  also  in  Hebrews, 
which,  with  I  Peter  depends  upon  Paul.  Some  of  Paul's  favorite 
terms  may  be  found  in  this  list,  e.  g.  xpstccwv,  pixYjTiQc,  Tcspixoirjcri?, 
<7apxix6c,  (7UYx>^r,pov6[j.o$,  6%(xxori,  cpiT^aBsT^cpta,  etc. 

Bigg  argues  that  "  there  are  none  of  those  words  which  belong 
especially  to  the  circle  of  Paul's  ideas  to  be  found  in  I  Peter,"  hence 
the  inference  is  that  it  cannot  depend  upon  Paul.  The  force  of  his 
argument  is  seen  to  be  nil,  by  a  glance  at  the  following  arrangement 
of  the  words  which  he  cites. 


a    c 


c     •^ 

P5    M 

d 

M 

"3 

^ 

3 
o 

H 

axpo(iu(7Tia 
Stxaiouv 

11  2 
14  2 

3 

8 

2 

2 

1 

TwepiTOp-T; 

14  1 

7 

1 

2 

4 

D^XoysTv 

1 

1 

(>:vax£cpa>.ai,o 

ulob-zairx 

udb'cci 

1 
3 

1 

1 
1 

7:XTjp(>)[j.a 

4  2 

1 

4 

2 

[lUCriTYlplOV 

appa[io)v 

2  5 

2 

6 
1 

4 

1 

7:y.pa.7:zoi]j,oc 

9 

1 

1 

3 

2 

7:apa[iafftc 

TrapajjaTTjC 

3 
2 
2 

1 
1 

2 

1 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII. 


32 


January,  1913. 


476  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 


i  d 

II  C. 

Gal. 

^ 

1— 1 

M 

s 

I— ( 

a 

H 

1— 1 
1—1 

Tupoopi^eiv 

2  1 

.       5  4 

17  2 

2 
1 

1 

2 

xa-apysTv 

6  9 
2 

4  3 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

cr-raupoOv 

4 

1  3 

[J-OpcpY] 

Ypap-ixa 

4 
3 

1 
2  1 

1 

1 

No  one  denies  that  I  Thessalonians  came  from  the  "  circle  of 
PauUne  ideas,"  yet  of  all  the  words  Bigg  cites,  not  one  is  found  in 
that  generally  accepted  Epistle.  They  also  appear  in  other  Epistles 
so  rarely  that  the  argument  is  absolutely  worthless. 

One  is  puzzled  to  know  how  the  same  author  can  advance,  as 
an  argument  against  the  Pauline  influence  upon  our  Epistle,  the 
statement  that  "  we  do  not  find,  in  I  Peter,  BixaioOv  or  its  family." 
True,  the  verbal  form  is  not  to  be  found  in  I  Peter,  neither  is  it 
to  be  found  in  eight  of  the  Pauhne  Epistles.  Hence  from  his 
premise  these  are  not  Pauline.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  may 
consider  the  kindship  of  Bixauoc,  BixaioT'jvTj,  and  Bixaio?  not  too 
distant  to  belong  to  the  household  of  BixaioSv,  we  shall  be  required 
to  conclude  Professor  Bigg  had  incidentally  overlooked  many  of 
the  references,  since  our  author  employs  Sixaiwi;  once  (2  ;  23),  Bi- 
y.MOG'jvt]  twice  (2  ;  24,  3  ;  14),  and  Bixatoc  three  times  (3  ;  12,  18, 
4;  18). 

Bigg  notes  (Com.  p.  4—5)  that  "  very  few  connecting  particles 
occur  "  in  the  Epistle.     He  then  gives  the  following  examples  : 


av 

apa 

Y£ 

IksiBy) 

ZTZti 

TS 

Byj 

710  U    KO)C, 

Matthew 

41 

7 

1 

2 

4 

1 

Mark 

21 

2 

1 

1 

Luke 

29 

6 

4 

1 

2 

7 

1 

John 
Acts 

27 
20 

6 

3 

3 

2 

3 
136 

2 

2 

Romans 

7 

11 

1 

4 

16 

1        3 

I  Corinthians 

12 

5 

3 

4 

5 

4 

1 

2 

II  Corinthians 

3 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

5 

Galatians 

5 

6 

2 

Ephesians 

1 

2 

First  Epistle  of  Peter.  477 

av     apa  ys     i%tiVf\  ir.si     xz     ^-^     mu  %oiq 

Philippians                         1  11                          1 
Colossians                           1 

I  Thessalonians                 11  4 

II  Thessalonians  1 

I  Timothy 

II  Timothy 
Titus 
Philemon 

Hebrews  6       2  9       20  1 

James  3  1 

II  Peter 

I  John  5 

II  John 

III  John 

Jude  I 

Revelation  3  2 

"  That  av  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Epistle  "  he  says  "  is  alone 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  writer  was  not  a  Greek."  (Com.  p.  5.) 
The  weakness  of  this  argument  is  made  obvious  by  the  above  ar- 
rangement of  the  words  which  he  cites.  It  is  seen  that  this  par- 
ticle does  not  appear  in  a  number  of  Paul's  Epistles.  True,  Paul 
was  not  a  Greek  by  birth,  yet  his  native  city  was  a  center  of  Greek 
culture  of  no  little  consequence.  He  had  abundant  opportunity 
in  Tarsus  to  learn  the  Greek  language  thoroughly.  At  any  rate 
we  are  assured  by  his  writings  that  he  was  a  master  of  the  Greek 
language.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  his  Epistles,  which  compose 
cir.  25  %  of  the  N.  T.,  av  appears  but  thirty  times,  whereas  in  Matthew, 
which  certainly  goes  back  to  a  Semitic  original,  the  word  occurs 
forty-one  times.  The  above  table  shows  that  Paul,  or  his  amanu- 
ensis, employed  the  particle  very  freely  at  times  and  at  other  times 
not  at  all.  That  the  word  appears  in  Matthew  about  as  often  as 
in  Luke  and  Acts  combined,  which,  on  the  whole,  are  written  in 
as  good  Greek  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  N.  T.,  shows  that  Bigg's 
argument  has  practically  nothing  to  support  it.  Furthermore  it 
involves  an  inconsistency,  in  that,  he  admits  that  our  author  pos- 
sessed "  a  remarkable  correctness  of  usage."  He  also  states  that 
"  the  article  is  employed  in  more  classical  style  than  by  any  other 
writer  in  the  N.  T.,  and  still  more  striking  is  the  refined  accuracy 
of  his  use  of  ox;."  (Cf.  Com.  p.  4.)  These  concessions  certainly  do 
not  support  his  claim  that  our  author  "  could  not  have  been  a  Greek." 


478  Ora  Dehner  Foster, 

On  Bigg's  premise,  we  should  expect  the  particle  to  be  of  rare 
occurence  in  the  "  Petrine  portion  "  of  Acts,  whereas  out  of  its 
twenty  appearances  in  the  entire  book,  thirteen  are  in  the  first  ten 
chapters.  Many  of  them  are  also  in  the  "  speeches  of  Peter."  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  absence  of  av,  instead  of  being  an 
argument  against  the  dependence  of  our  Epistle  upon  Paul,  rather 
indicates  the  opposite,  since  the  "  Pauline  portion  "  of  Acts  uses 
the  word  but  rarely. 

The  study  of  apa  yields  a  similar  result  to  that  obtained  through 
av.  It  appears  four  times  in  the  Petrine  portion  of  Acts,  and 
but  twice  in  the  Pauline  section.  It  also  shows  a  great  variation 
of  usage  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Fs  is  found  in  Acts  only  in  the 
first  eleven  chapters,  which  again  would  seem  to  show  a  closer 
relation  between  our  Epistle  and  the  Pauline  section  than  with 
the  Petrine  portion,  as  might  be  expected.  "  Luke ",  who  also 
"uses  the  language  with  freedom  and  not  with  an  inconsiderable 
degree  of  correctness  ",  does  not  use  l-zi  in  the  Acts  at  all,  and 
but  twice  in  the  Gospel.  If  in  fifty-two  chapters  he  uses  the  word 
but  twice,  and  in  the  acts  not  at  all,  we  should  not  be  surprised 
at  its  absence  in  a  short  Epistle  of  but  five  chapters.  'EtcsiS"/)  is 
used  but  six  times  by  Paul  and  but  five  times  by  all  the  rest  of 
the  N.  T.  authors,  so  we  should  not  think  it  strange  that  it  does 
not  appear  in  this  little  Epistle.  Ts  affords  a  good  example  of 
how  an  author  may  vary  in  the  use  of  a  particular  word  in  diffe- 
rent writings.  It  appears  sixteen  times  in  Romans,  and  not  at 
all  in  Galatians,  Colossians,  I  and  II  Thessalonians,  and  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  "Luke"  also  employs  it  but  seven  times  in  his  Gospel, 
whereas  it  appears  one  hundred  and  thirty-six  times  in  Acts,  fifty- 
four  of  which  are  in  the  "  Petrine  division."  \r^  is  a  very  rare 
word  in  the  N.  T.  The  absence  of  the  particle  from  I  Peter  is 
just  what  would  be  expected  by  those  who  assert  its  dependence, 
since  Paul  only  uses  it  twice.  IIo'j  is  only  used  once  in  all  the 
letters  of  Paul.  ITok  is  strictly  a  Pauline  term,  yet  he  does  not 
use  it  in  seven  of  his  Epistles.  Hw;  is  not  used  by  our  author, 
yet  it  occurs  nine  times  in  Acts,  seven  of  which  are  in  the  Petrine 
section. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  the  list  of  "  missing  particles,"  cited 
by  Bigg,  does  not  argue  against,  but  for  Petrine  dependence  upon 
the  Pauline  Epistles. 

As  a  further  test  of  the  verbal  argument,  a  careful  classification 
and  count  has  been  made  of  all  the  words  used  in  I  Peter,  which 
are  also  employed  by  no  more  than  six  other  N.  T.  writers. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  479 

Total  occurrences  in  the  generally  accepted  Epistles  of 

Paul  344 

Total  occurrences  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  40 

Total  in  the  Pauhne  Epistles  384 

Number  in  Petrine  section  of  Acts  23 

Number  in  Pauline  section  of  Acts  41 

Total  in  Acts  64 

Total  in  all  the  other  N.  T.  books  333 

Grand  total  781 

Of  the  N.  T.  the  Pauline  Epistles  (excluding  Pastorals)  =  22% 
Of  the  N.  T.  the  Pastoral  Epistles  •=     3% 

Of  the  N.  T.  the  Pauline  Epistles  compose  cir.  25% 

Normal  proportion  of  occurrences  in  the  Petrine  section 

of  Acts  29 

Normal  proportion  of  occurrences  in  the  Pauline  section 

of  Acts  35 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  words  of  this  list  are  below  the 
normal  in  the  Petrine  section,  contrary  to  the  "  one  source  "  theory. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  which  constitute  but  25%  of  the  N.  T.  contain 
almost  50%  of  these  words. 

It  seems  therefore,  as  against  Professor  Bigg,  that  there  must  be 
some  relationship  between  I  Peter  and  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

Conclusion 

We  have  seen  that  the  opposing  arguments,  reviewed  above,  have 
proven  to  be  of  very  little  moment.  Their  testimony,  what  little 
they  have  to  offer,  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the  dependence  of  I  Peter 
upon  the  Pauhne  Epistles  rather  than  against  it. 

We  have  also  noted  that  the  great  majority  of  scholars  of  all 
schools  agree  that  our  Epistle  depends  upon  Paul.  Even  those, 
as  Klopper,  who  deny  the  genuineness  of  either  I  Peter  or  Ephesians, 
contend  that  Ephesians  was  used  b\'  our  author.  ]\Ioffat  voices  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  of  scholars  \\hen  he  says  :  "  The  literarj' 
connection  of  I  Peter  with  the  later  Pauline  epistles  is  indubitable  " 
(Hist.  N.  T.  p.  246).  A  glance  at  the  underscored  text  of  the  Epistle 
(cf.  pgs.  101—106)  would  seem  not  only  to  justify  this  conclusion,  but 
also  to  warrant  McGiffert  and  Bennet  and  Adeney  in  saying  that  : 
"  there  is  no  other  book  in  the  N.  T.  not  written  by  Paul  himself  that 
so  closely  resembles  his  writings  (Apos.  Age  p.  485,  and  Bib.  Int.  p.442) . 

x\s  a  result  af  the  foregoing  study  we  are  led  to  say  with  Professor 
Bacon  that  :  "  It  is  one  of  the  most  solid  results  of  criticism,  that 


480  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

our  Epistle  stands  in  direct  literary  dependence  on  the  great  epistles 
of  Paul,  particularly  Ephesians,"  (and  Romans).     Int.  N.T.  p.  153). 

HEBREWS 
B 

b— c 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18-20  Heb.  9  ;  12,  14,  24-25 

sXuTpo)8"YiT£  .  .  .  TijjLio)  al'jj.aTt  6)<;  to  aTjjia  toO  XpicrToO,  oc,  Bia  7:votj- 
ajxvotj  <X]iM]^.ou  xoi  a'77:tXou  XptT-  [j-aTOC  ato)vioD  sauTov  xpoTrivsYxsv 
Toti,  Tuposyvfocrfxevou  [xsv  7:p6  xaira-  a[j.w[j-ov  tw  Osw  .  .  .  Xpicr-o?  .  .  . 
^o\%c,  x6(r[xou,  <pavspcoS-£v-oc  SI  ouB'  iva  xoT^lccxic  TvpoiospY)  sauTov 
sx'  £<r/a-iOU  Twv  j^povwv  St'   6[xa5      wo-Trep    6    apy^ispsuc   siasp/^s-ai   sii; 

TO  ayta  xaT  evtauTOV  sv  at[j.aTi 
.  .  .  dcTCo  xaTa|3o}.rj?  x6o-[j.od,  vdvI 
Ss  axa^  STU  (Tuvxslela  Toiv  aicovojv 
£1?  aQ>£T7](7tv  Trj(;  aixapTiai;  Bia 
T?i?  O-jjOTa?  auToD  7:£cpav£p(.)Tai 

St.  Paul  frequently  alludes  to  the  redemption  through  Christ  but 
not  just  as  these  authors  do.  The  former  never  uses  the  word 
apjij.oc  just  as  the  latter  use  it.  "The  physical  perfection  of 
the  victim  is  regarded  as  typical  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ, 
which  makes  his  blood  Tipov "  (Bigg),  all  of  which  is  in 
thorough  harmony  with  Hebrews.  Christ's  blood  as  the  means  of 
redemption  is  emphasised  by  both  authors.  Both  contrast  the 
efficacy  of  the  appointed  means  with  other  agencies.  Both  allude 
to  the  former  conduct  much  in  the  same  fashion.  Cf.  I  Pt.  1  ;  18b 
with  Heb.  9  ;  14  b.  Compare  also  Tcpo  xaxa[3oX^i;  xoo-jxou  with  dcTuo 
xaTapoXr,?  x6G\s.orj\  cpavEpwQ-EVTOc  with  7:£cpav£po)Tai ;  1%  scr/ocTou  twv 
/povcov  with  iizi  rrov-zXtia  Toiv  aiwvcov,  and  utzccc,  .  .  .  Heb.  9  ;  25  with 
ocTzoCi  .  .  I  Pt.  3  ;  18.  Both  Epistles  have  thought  in  common  with  Paul, 
yet  the  parallels  noted  above  can  hardly  be  due  to  common  de- 
pendence. The  thought  runs  through  the  whole  chapter  of  Hebrews, 
whereas  in  I  Peter  it  is  more  fragmentary,  indicating  the  priority 
of  the  former.  Dependence  is  made  more  probable  by  the  close 
parallel  between  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  and  Heb.  12  ;  28. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  Heb.  9 ;  28 

be  'zxc  aij.apTia?  Y;p.S)v  a'jTO?  O'jtw?  xai  6  XpKTTOC  a^ra^  Tcpo- 
UYfyz\'Y.sy  £v  tw  (jw[j.aTi  auToU  (7£VEy&-£ic  zlc  to  xoT^loiv  avsvEyxsTv 

ap.apTiac 
"  The  turn  which   St.   Peter  has  given  to  the  words  represents 
Christ  as  not  only  the  sin-offering  who   bore   the  consequences  of 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  481 

the  sins  of  his  people  on  the  cross  of  shame  (r;/£Y''''Sv  ir^i  tw  c'j'im), 
but  as  the  priest  who  took  the  sins,  or  sin-offering  and  laid  the 
sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  the  cross.  Thus  Alford  appears  to  be 
right  in  giving  avaospsiv  here  a  double  meaning ;  but  the  two 
meanings  '  bear '  and  '  carry '  both  belong  to  the  one  Greek  word, 
and  St.  Peter  has  done  his  best  to  cure  the  ambiguity  by  ex- 
panding Isaiah's  a'jTo;  into  the  highly  emphatic  a'jTo;  sv  tw  '7o')[j.a-:' 
a'jTou,  which,  reinforced  as  they  are  by  the  following  [j.o')7.o)-'-, 
clearly  mean,  He  Himself,  by  His  own  personal  suffering,  carried 
the  sins  up  ;  in  other  words,  the  Priest  was  also  the  Victim."  Bigg. 
That  Christ  was  both  priest  and  victim  is  dwelt  upon  at  length  in 
Hebrews,  e.  g.  9  ;  11,  12,  14,  24—28.  This  un-Pauline  chapter  of 
Hebrews  seems  to  form  the  basis  of  our  author's  allusion  to  the 
"  Suffering  Servant."  Not  only  the  peculiar  thought  but  also  the 
phraseology  is  very  suggestive  of  literary  dependence.  The  phrase 
avacpspstv  aiJiapTtac  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  all  the 
N.  T.  Note  also  the  other  possible  points  of  contact  in  these 
contexts,  e.  g.  I  Pt.  2  ;  23  =  Heb.  12  ;  3,  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  25  = 
Heb.  13  ;  20. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2  ;  25  Heb.  13 ;  20 

-ot,ij.£va  xai  £7;iC7xo~ov  to)V  'j^'J/tov      7;ot[jiva  toTv  T^popa^cov  tov  [jiyav 

Professor  E.  J.  Goodspeed  (Epis.  to  the  Heb.  p.  122)  calls  atten- 
tion to  this  striking  parallel.  It  is  indeed  suggestive  since  the  onl}' 
reference  to  the  favorite  Petrine  "  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,"  in  the  whole  Epistle,  appears  in  this  connection.  "  The  great 
shepherd  of  the  sheep  is  a  Messianic  designation.  Cf.  also  I  Pt. 
5  ;  4  (the  arch-shepherd).  Not  simply  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
of  Isa.  63  ;  11  LXX,  but  the  great  shepherd."  Goodspeed.  Cf. 
also  Jn.  10  ;  11,  14,  21  ;  16,  which  were  probably  influenced  by  the 
above  passages.  Paul  never  uses  the  metaphor  7tOi[XT,v  except  of 
the  Christian  minister.  Cf.  Eph.  4  ;  11  (Acts  20  ;  28).  Though  it 
is  easy  to  draw  the  figure  used  here  either  from  Paul  or  the  O.  T., 
it  seems  more  probable  in  this  connection  that  I  Peter  was  influenced 
by  Hebrews.  Note  I  Pt.  2  ;  22  =  Heb.  4  ;  15,  2  ;  23  =  12  ;  3,  2  ;  24 
=  9  ;  28,  2  ;  25  =  13  ;  20. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Heb.  9 ;  28 

XpiG-Toc  scTca'^  Twspi  aij.apTuov  y.r.i-      XpiTTo?  y.-%i  Tzpoo-svc/Q-sk  sic  to 
O-avsv  (s-aO-sv)  7:oX7.(ov    avsvsyxsTv    ocjj-apTiac  .  .  . 


482  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

Only  in  these  two  places  is  axa^  so  employed.  Cf.  Heb.  9 ; 
26.  The  same  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  here  set  forth  in  a 
similar  fashion.  This  shows  that  both  authors  moved  in  the  same 
sphere  of  thought,  if  indeed,  it  does  not  prove  dependence.  Sal- 
mon thinks  that  a-JzoCi  is  accounted  for  by  the  lod-ccc,  of  Rom. 
6  ;  10.  (Int.  p.  556.)  But  against  this  view  it  is  to  be  urged  that 
the  phrase  avacpspsiv  ap.apTta?  only  appears  in  I  Peter  and  Hebrews. 
See  Ex.  2  above.  The  conjunction  of  these  two  peculiar  usages 
in  a  suggestive  context  makes  dependence  highly  probable. 

(5)  I  Pt.  3;  18  b  Heb.  12;  22 

iva  ujj.ac  -poirayaYTi  Toi  Hsoi  zpo(7£lY]l!J0T|T£  Zuov   opsi  xai  tco- 

}v£i  'Bsoij    LWVT05,   'lepouTaT^Yiix   £- 
Tuoupaviw 

I  Peter  and  Hebrews  both  represent  the  Christians  as  mere  strangers 
and  sojourners  in  the  world  and  that  Christ  leads  them  through 
this  wilderness  of  life  to  God,  the  heavenly  home,  the  New  Jerusalem. 
This  non-Pauline  thought  shows  a  real  point  of  connection.  The 
above  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  the  ones  immediately 
preceding  and  immediately  following. 

(6)  I  Pt.  3;  20  Heb.  11;  7 

ev  Yjjjipai?  N(o£  /.a-ra(r/.Btja^o[Ji£vr,?      Nwe  .  .  .  xfx-trrKZ'jix'jz   Y.ipo)-ov    zlc 

cav 

"  Salvation  "  is  mentioned  by  both  authors  as  the  purpose  of 
preparing  the  ark.  No  other  N.  T.  writers  so  allude  to  it.  Heb.  11 
is  an  excursus  on  "  faith,"  caUing  up  the  Patriarchs  in  order  as 
examples.  Hence  the  passage  was  not  suggested  by  our  Epistle 
to  the  author  of  Hebrews,  but  the  reverse  relation  seems  highly 
probable  in  this  context.     Cf.  Exs.  5  and  7. 

(7)  I  Pt.  3;  21  Heb.  9;  24,  10;  22 

6    xai    'J^otq    avTiTUTCOv    vOv    g-o)^£1  avTiTurra   .  .  .    p£pavTt'7[J.£voi     -zoi^ 

[3a7c-:ia-p.a,     o'j    aapxoc     o^-Kob-zaiq  xapBCai;  avco    7'jv£iBtg-£co?   ;:ovripac 

p'JTUou    alia   (joyzibriGZfoq    o(.y(xb'%c  xcd    1£};ol»o-^evo!,    to    Twij.a    uBact, 

l7C£p(0TY][j.a  zlc,  0£6v  xaQ'apo) 

'AvTiT-jTrov  occurs  only  in  these  two  places  in  the  N.  T.  The 
ethical  and  symbolical  signification  of  baptism  is  here  set  forth 
in  similar  ways.     Both  see  great  efficacy  in  the  baptismal  ordinance, 


First  Epistle  of  Peter  483 

not  as  a  cleansing  of  the  body  but  as  a  cleansing  of  the  conscience. 
No  other  N.  T.  writers  so  allude  to  it.  Both  refer  to  the  physical 
ablution  in  suggestive  phraseology.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that 
pavTto-[j.£vot  is  similarly  used  by  I  Peter  in  other  connections. 

(8)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Heb.  13 ;  21 

w    saTiv    •/]   Bo^a   xal    to    xpa'TO?      (T)  -^  Boca  dc  'zo'jc  auova;  tcov  od- 
zl<;  TTOUC  auovac  twv  aiwvcov  a[j.T,v.      covwv.   a[j;/;v 
See  also  5  ;  11 

That  no  earlier  writer  addresses  doxologies  to  Christ  is  most 
significant.  II  Tim.  4  ;  18  is  hardly  an  exception.  The  similar 
phrasing  in  this  peculiar  usage  is  most  easily  accounted  for  on  the 
basis  of  some  real  connection. 

(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  Heb.  13 ;  20 

ToD  ap/i7:oi[j.£voc  tov    ^ot[JL£va    twv    TrpopdcTcov    tov 

[j.syav 

Monnier,  Goodspeed  and  many  others  think  that  there  is  here  some 
connection.     See  comments  on  Ex.  3. 


(10)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Heb.  12 ;  24 

pavTtTjj.ov  al'ij.aTor  'IrjTO'j  XpiTToD      BiaBTf/wT,?  vsa?   [jxtit-^]  'I-^jtoO,    xal 

od[xc<.zi  pavTia^.ou.     10  ;  22 

The  parallel  is  striking  since  it  is  used  b}'  no  other  N.  T.  writers. 
"  The  idea  is  foreign  to  Paul  but  recurs  in  Barnabas."  (Bigg.)  The 
possible  reference  in  I  Pt.  4  ;  6  to  Heb.  12  ;  23  b  is  significant  in  this 
connection.     Note  also  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  may  refer  to  Heb.  6  ;  18. 

(11)  I  Pt.  1  ;  11  Heb.  12 ;  2 

Ttvstiij.a  XpicToO  7;po[j.apTi»po[j.£vov  'j7r£[X£V£v  axccupov  aW/UYr^c  xara- 
Toc  Ei;  XpiTTov  ::au-/][j.aTa  y.oCi  toc?  opovrjCa?  £v  Bsaa  -z  toO  O-povoy 
[j.£Ta  TatjTa  Bocae  toO  (-)£oj  xsxaOixsv 

Though  Paul  frequently  aUudes  to  the  (jzvjjpoc  he  does  not  think 
of  Jesus  "  enduring "  it  that  glor}^  should  follow.  Nor  does  he 
think  of  Jesus  as  the  suffering  Servant  of  Isa.  53,  as  is  here  presented. 
V7C£[j.sv£v  0"taup6v  and  zaD-rjij.a^a  are  quite  different  in  form  yet  the 
meaning  is  the  same  and  probably  shows  some  connection.  No  doubl 
both  authors  are  influenced  here  by  Paul  yet  it  is  to  be  noted  that 


484  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

I  Peter  may  also  be  influenced  by  Hebrews,  for  the  latter,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  former,  lays,  greater  stress  upon  Christ's  sufferings 
than  does  Paul.  Christ's  glorification  is  a  common  teaching  of  this 
period. 

(12)  I  Pt.  1  ;  12  Heb.  11 ;  13 

Both  authors  may  draw  independently  from  such  O.  T.  passages 
as  Num.  24  ;  17  or  Deut.  18  ;  15,  but  because  of  the  close  resem- 
blance between  Heb.  11  ;  13b  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  (2  ;  11),  I  Pt.  1  ;  11 
and  Heb.  12  ;  2  dependence  is  rendered  quite  probable. 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  17  Heb.  12 ;  28 

/povov  avaTTpacpTjT's  [xz-cc  s^jXapsta?  xai  Bsou? 

These  authors  emphasise  the  "  fear  of  God  "  whereas  Paul  lays 
the  stress  on  the  "  love  of  God."  The  contextual  connection  makes 
it  more  probable  that  I  Peter  was  influenced  by  Hebrews.  Heb. 
12  ;  5,  6  is  echoed  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  a  and  Heb.  11  ;  13  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  b. 
Cf.  also  I  Pt.  2;  11. 

(14)  I  Ft.  2 ;  2  Heb.  5 ;  12 

6)c.  txpTiY£vvY]-a  (jpsoT)  TO  Xoyi/vOv  ysyovaTC  ypziay  zyrjy-zc,  ^oChJxyjxrjc, 
aBo}.ov  yaT^a  eTciTroO-ric-aTS  .  .  ttcci;     yap     6     [J-sts/cov     ya}^axToc 

ocTistpoi;  };6you,  Bixsciotuvyic,  vrirrioc 
'  yap  £0"ti,v 

Both  authors  may  be  influenced  b}^  Paul  at  this  point.  Paul 
employs  with  Hebrews  the  word  vTjTiioc,  whereas  I  Peter  uses  [Bpscpoc. 
"  This  passage  (I  Pt.  2  ;  2)  marks  better  than  any  other  the  difference 
between  St.  Peter,  Hebrews,  and  St.  Paul.  In  St.  Peter's  eyes  the 
Christian  is  always  a  babe,  always  in  need  of  mother's  milk,  grow- 
ing not  to  perfection  but  to  deliverance.  In  Heb.  5  ;  12,  6  ;  2,  milk 
is  the  catechism,  the  rudiments  of  faith  .  .  .  contrasted  with  the 
"  solid  meat."  St.  Paul  is  vexed  with  the  babe,  who  is  the  weaker 
brother  the  formalist.  Hebrews  represents  (here)  a  via  media  between 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  "  (Bigg).  It  would  seem  therefore  that  the 
Pauhne  figure  was  modified  in  our  author's  mind  by  the  use  made 
of  it  in  Hebrews. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  485 

(15)  I  Pt.  2 ;  3  Heb.  6 ;  5 

I  Peter  refers  here  to  Ps.  34 ;  9  {yz'jTXTb-z  xai  iBsts  oti  /pYiTTo? 
6  x^ptoc),  but  probably  at  the  suggestion  of  Hebrews  since  the 
similar  usage  follows  the  preceding  parallel  so  closely  in  both  books. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Heb.  3 ;  6 

"  These  authors  alone  insist  on  the  believers'  privileges  as  members 
of  the  house  of  God."  Possibly  I  Peter  drew  independently  from 
Paul,  yet  the  following  parallel  makes  dependence  here  seem  prob- 
able. 

(17)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Heb.  13 ;  15 

avovsyxai  i7^zu[t,c(.'uiy.b(;  bvyioic,  s'j-  Bi'  a^TOu  avacp£poj[j.£v  Q-DTtav  ai- 
7:po(ybiY.'ZOUC,  0£a)  Bia  'Iyitou  XpiT-      vetsoj^  8ta  r^of-yzoc,  tw  0£(o 

Though  these  passages  suggest  Rom.  12  ;  If.,  these  are  the  only 
N.  T.  authors  who  use  the  phrase  ava(p£p£iv  O^ucriav.  They  may 
have  drawn  the  phrase  from  the  LXX,  where  it  is  frequently  em- 
ployed, but  in  view  of  the  other  possible  points  of  contact  with  Hebrews 
in  this  context  is  seems  very  probable  that  our  author  was  also 
influenced  by  the  more  copious  treatment  of  the  sacrificial  figure 
in  that  book. 

(18)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Heb.  11  ;  13 

"scpoixofjc  xal  ;:ap£xtBiri[j-otJ5  cfvot  xai  7:ap£mBrj[j.ot 

The  exact  form  used  in  Hebrews  is  peculiar  to  that  book.  Z£vo'. 
xal  Tcapotxot  appears  only  in  Eph.  2  ;  19.  nap£7:iBrjij.oc  is  found 
in  the  N.  T.  only  in  the  above  passages.  By  ehminating  the 
term  Hsvoi,  common  to  the  earlier  authors,  it  would  appear 
that  our  author  combined  the  remaining  terms.  It  is  also  to  be 
noted  that  no  other  N.  T.  books  lay  so  much  stress  upon  the  thought 
that  Christians  are  but  sojourners  in  the  world. 

(19)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21,  23  Heb.  12 :  3 

o-zi  Xpio-TC-c  £7:ai}"£v  67:£p  6[j.6)V,  do^cCko^^i'j'xabz  y^p  '''^'^  T0t3cjvr,v 
6[j.Tv  67co}.i[X7:avwv  uTcoypaij-jj-ov  -6?  6~oij.£[j.£VT,x6Ta  6-6  -Civ  aij.apTO)}.o)v 
)vOiBopou[j.£voc  o'jx  av-£7,o!,B6p£!.  dc,  Ea'jTO-jc  avTiloy'-^''' 

The  appeal  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  a  reason  for  tne  Christians 
endurance  under    persecution  is  not  made  by  Paul.     Though  the 


486  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

phraseology  is  different  the  thought  is  very  suggestive.  The  pro- 
babihties  of  dependence  are  heightened  by  the  following  parallels. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  22  =  Heb.  4  ;  15,  Heb.  12  ;  2  =  I  Pt  3 ;  22,  I  Pt.  2  ; 
24a  =  Heb.  9  ;  28a,  Heb.  9  ;  26  =  I  Pt.  3  ;  18. 

(20)  I  Pt.  3 ;  16  Heb.  13 ;  18 

tuvsiByitiv  zyymc  ayaO-TiV,  tva  sv  xaXvjv  cruXei^Yjaiv  £/o[j.£v,  sv  Traaiv 
d)    'KCf.'XCf.'koCkzi'jb-z    7.u'U(y.ir>yi)vi)'(j)Gi'v      xaXw^  8'£}i.ovts?  avacTTpscpsirO-ai 

01    £7CY]p£a^OVT£5    6[J.0)V    TY]V   ayaO'Tjv 

£V  XptCTTw  avac"Tpocpr,v 

"  These  are  the  only  N.  T.  authors  who  connect  '  the  good  con- 
science'  with  good  habits  of  hfe."  The  phrase  £v  Xpii-o)  suggests 
that  our  author  is  influenced  here  by  Paul,  yet  the  above  usage 
seems  to  indicate  that  he  also  knew  Hebrews.  Note  the  parallel 
usage  of  avacpspEtv  and  its  derivative. 

(21)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Heb.  1 ;  3,  4,  6 

oc  Ig~v/  £v  B£^i,a  0£oO  izoptob^iic,  IxaO-to-EV  £V  Be^ioc  tt^?  [j.£ya>.o)(j-uvrji; 
£1$  o'jpavov  •j7:oTaY£VTO)v  auTco  Iv  i)<^y\}^oXc,  tocouto)  xp£iTTO)v  Y£vo- 
(XyyeXojv  xai  IcoucLOiv  xai  Buvaixsov      [j.£voc  twv  ayY^^^tov 

Cf'.  2  ;  9,  12  ;  2. 

Though  I  Peter  may  depend  upon  Paul  at  this  point,  the  sequense 
of  thought,  which  is  so  suggestive  of  Hebrews,  should  not  be  over- 
looked. Cf.  I  Pt.  3  ;  20  with  Heb.  11  ;  7  and  I  Pt.  3  ;  21  with  Heb. 
9  ;  24,  10  ;  22. 

(22)  I  Pt.  4;  14  Heb.  11;  20,  13;  13 

£1  6v£iBir£'jO'£  £v  6v6[j.aTi  Xpi^Tot),  r^yri<jd[xt'/oc  .  ,  .  -zw  oveiBio-ij.ov  toD 
^axapioi  Xpicnroij,    13  ;    13    tov    ov£iBt(r[j.6v 

aUTOtJ    (pEpOVTEC 

"  These  writers  only  refer  to  the  blessing  pronounced  by  the 
ninth  beatitude  on  those  who  suffer  reproach  for  Christ's  sake," 
Our  author  may  draw  independently  from  a  logion  of  the  Lord,  but 
it  seems  quite  natural  in  this  context  to  suppose  that  he  was  influenced 
by  Hebrews. 

(23)  I  Pt.  4 ;  17  Heb.  10 ;  21 

(XTIO    TOU    ol'xOO    'ZOO    0£Ot>  £7tl    TOV    oTxOV    ZOO    (dtOO 

I  Peter  may  be  influenced  directly  by  Ez.  9  ;  6,  yet  the  phrase 
is  different.     No  other  N.  T.  writers  use  the  phrase  with  the  meaning 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  487 

"  household  of  God."     The  phrase  appears  in  I  Tim.  3  ;  15,  but  not 
in  the  above  sense.     Cf.  Heb.  3  ;  6. 

(24)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  Heb.  2 ;  7,  9 

The  "  crown  of  glory  "  would  very  naturally  be  attributed  to 
Christ  first,  then  to  his  followers.  If  there  is  dependence  shown 
here  it  would  seem  to  indicate  the  priority  of  Hebrews.  The  thought 
"  crown  of  glory  "  or  "  crowned  with  glory  "  occurs  only  here  in  the. 
N.  T.  The  contextual  sequence  is  hardly  accidental.  Cf.  I  Pt. 
2  ;  25,  5  ;  4  with  Heb.  13  ;  20,  also  I  Pt.  3  ;  22  with  Heb.  2  ;  9,  12  ;  2. 

(25)  I  Pt    5;  10  Heb.  13;  20 

6  Osoc  z.aa-(^c  /rk^i-rjc,  .  .  .  xairap-      6  Qsoc  T%q  zlpr^YrtC  .  .  .  xaTapTiG-at 

It  is  very  significant  that  in  the  immediate  contexts,  Jesus  Christ 
is  appealed  to  as  the  one  through  whom  God  works.  Hebrews  very 
probably  depends  here  upon  II  Thes.  2  ;  17. 

(26)  I  Pt.  5;  12  Heb.  13;  22 

Though  the  thought  is  couched  in  different  words,  it  is  indeed 
suggestive. 

c— d 

(27)  I  Pt.  1 ;  4  Heb.  9 ;  15 

/v}vr;povo[j.tav  aoS^apTOv  xai  aixiav-      zf^^   cdomou  x}.-r]povo[jia; 
■zov  xai  ()C[j.apavT'ov 

These  are  the  first  N.  T.  writers  to  use  the  word  aijiavTo?.  Cf. 
Heb.  7  ;  26,  13  ;  4.  The  imperishable  nature  of  the  inheritance 
is  emphasised  by  both  authors.  Yet  they  may  draw  independentl}' 
from  Paul.  Cf.  Gal.  3  ;  18,  Eph.  1  ;  14,  18,  5";  5,  Col.  3  ;  24,  I  Cor. 
6;  9,  10,  15;  15,  Gal.  4  ;  30,  5  ;  21. 

(28)  I  Pt.  1;  6  Heb.  12;  11 

sv  &  6!.yoOOdafjb'Z,  oliyov    apTt   zl  izuacc    [;.£v    izai^dcc    zpo?    [xsv    to 

B^ov   XuTrfi-ivzet;  sv  izovAikoic,   xsi-  xapov  ou  BoxsT  '/jxpoic  zX'^ca   dOJ.x 

pacrpT?  lu—r^c^  unzspw  Bs  xap-6v  £?p-^vix6v 

The  phraseology  is  not  so  suggestive  as  the  thought.  The  parallel 
receives  additional  significance  by  the  possible  reference  to  Heb. 
12  ;  10b  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  15,  IG. 


488  Or  a  Delnier  Foster, 

(29)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8  Heb.  11 ;  27 

zlc  ov  apTi  [j-Y]  6pwvT£5  m<7-£U0VT£?      TiicTst .  . .  Tov  yocp  aoparov  wi;  6pwv 

Faith  in  both  instances  consists  in  laying  hold  of  the  unseen. 
Cf.  Heb.  11  ;  1,  also  11  ;  13,  which  may  be  connected  with  I  Pt. 
1  ;  17,  2  ;  11. 

(30)  I  Pt.  1 ;  9  Heb.  10 ;  36,  39 

GiOZripi(X-^    t{>U/_WV  .  7Cl<7T£(05    £?C    7C£piTC0lYl(nV    'j"^/^? 

Though  this  thought  is  Pauline,  both  the  phraseology  and  the 
context  are  suggestive. 

(31)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Heb.  2 ;  9 

TOV  lyEipavTa  auTov  £X  v£xpwv  xal      Bta  to  xaS^-rjjjLa  tou  Q^avdcTou  B62t, 
^6'£av  a'JTw  'SovTa  xai  ti[X7]  £rrT£(pavo>[jivov 

Again  the  thought  is  Pauline,  but  suggestive  in  its  context.  Cf. 
I  Pt.  1  ;  18-20  with  Heb.  9  ;  12,  14,  24-25,  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  with 
Heb.  13;  1. 

(32)  I  Pt.  2;  1  Heb.  12;  1 

dcTuoO'Ejj.Evoi  o3v  Tracav  xaxiav  .  ,  .      oyvtov  a7coQ>£[X£vot  Travra 

This  parallel  is  made  more  suggestive  by  the  possible  reference  to 
Heb.  5  ;  12,  13  in  I  Pt.  2  ;  2. 

(33)  I  Pt.  3 ;  7  Heb.  11 ;  9,  1 ;  14 

<r!jvxlYjpov6[j.oi.  /^apiTO?  ^to^C  G'uvx7.rjpov6[j.tov     ttji;     iizccYytkdccc 

xATjpovoiJ.E'Tv   COJTYjpiaV 

This  may  be  a  mere  coincidence,  yet  I  Pt.  3  ;  7  ff .  is  very  sug- 
gestive of  Hebrews.  Cf.  I  Pt.  3  ;  Swith  Heb.  13  ;  1,  3  ;  9  with 
12  ;  17,  3  ;  11  with  12  ;  14,  etc. 

(34)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  Heb.  12 ;  17 

zu7.oyiav  x>.-/ipovo[j.'^crYiT£  x}.Yipovo[j-Y]a-a!,  tyjv  EuXoytav 

This  phrase  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  all  the  N.  T. 

(35)  I  Pt.  4 ;  1  Heb.  4 ;  12 

Evvoiav  Ivvoioiv 

Though  this  word  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  the  N.  T., 
it  may  be  wholly  accidental.     It  is   to    be    noted,    however,    that 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  489 

Pt.  4  ;  1  lays  much  stress  upon  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  harmony 
with  Hebrews. 

(36)  I  Pt.  4;  2  Heb.  9;  14 

.  .  .  Q'£>.Y)[j,a-t  BsoO  .  .  .  (3io)(7ai  sic  to  XxTpsyetv  Hsw  J^oivTi 

Cf.  I  Pt.  4  ;  la  with  Heb.  9  ;  26,  4  ;  lb  with  4  ;  12,  also  3  ;  15 
with  9  ;  15. 

(37|  I  Pt.  4;  5  Heb.  13;  17 

01  a;coBcoG'0'jG'iv  T^oyov  Xoyov  a-oSoWovTSi; 

This  exact  usage  is  peculiar  to  these  authors. 

(38)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Heb.  10 ;  25 
rravTcov  to  tsAoc  r^^fyiy.zv                     ^"kinzzz  h^^^iZ/yj/yxy  xry  7]ij.£pav 

This  idea,  when  considered  alone,  is  too  common  in  the  N.  T.  to 
merit  attention,  but  it  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  its  context 

(39)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Heb.  13 ;  1 

dc,  sauToiji;  ayccTCYjv  sxtevy]  zyovzzc,      yj  (^ikcchtXoiy.  [j.svstoj 

The   context   makes   this   very   common   exhortation   worthy   of 
mention. 

(40)  I  Pt.  4;  9  Heb.  13;  2 

oO/jczvoi  zlc,  a}.'Xrj}.otJC  tyJ?    cptAocsviac   [j-yj   sTCiXavO'avsT&'S 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13,  I  Tim.  3  ;  2,  Tit.  1  ;  18.     The  probabiUties  of 
dependence  are  increased  by  the  sequence  of  the  last  three  parallels. 

(41)  I  Pt.  5 ;  9  Heb.  12 ;  8 

£iB6t£5  Ta  auTOC    tojv  7ia&rjij,aT(ov      zl  /topir  Itts  TcaiBsiac,  r\c,  ^xoyoi 

TTj  .  .  .  aBsAcpOTaTi  sTZiTsTvsT'jO'a!,  yzyovuGiv  7:avTcr 

This  close  resemblance  in  thought  may  be  due  to  the  common 
background,  yet  the  context  is  to  be  considered. 

d 

(42)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Heb.  6 ;  18 

avayswrjO-ac  ri[j.ac  si?  zk%ib(x.  ^worav      y.^y-^fiyx  t-^c  TCpox£t[j.£VYi?  i7;7ri8o; 

The  phraseology  is  very  different  and  probably  shows  no  con- 
nection. 


490  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(43)  I  Pfc.  1 ;  15  Heb.  10 ;  14 

Accidental. 

(44)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Heb.  12 ;  28 

aytov,  0X0)^   Ta?   (5(:p£Tac   £^ayY£i-      'Xa[j.[3avovT£?  s/o)[X£v  ^apiv,   Bi   ■?]; 

>,Y]T£    TOU  .  .  .  7m~[jz6o)[XZV      £Uap£'7~C>):;     TTW       ©SW 

[j.£Ta  £u}vajj£[ac  xat,  Sfou? 

I  Peter  more  probably  shows  acquaintance  here  with  Eph.  1  ;  11, 
12.     Cf.  Deut.  10  ;  15  or  Ex.  19  ;  5,  6. 

(45)  I  Pt.  2 ;  22  Heb.  4 ;  15 

o?  a[j.apTiav  oux  £X0trj(7£v  .  .  .  y/'jpU  aij.apToac 

The  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ  is  too  common  to  constitute 
an  argument  for  hterary  dependence. 

(46)  I  Pt.  3 ;  11  '  Heb.  12 ;  14 
^YjTyiaairw    Etpr^vviv    xai    Siwcairo)      £?p"/]vrjV  BioV/vE" 

Our  author  is  quoting  directty  from  Ps.  34,  very  probably  at  the 
suggestion  of  Paul. 

(47)  I  Pt.  5;  7  Heb.  13;  5 

OTi.  a'jTw  [j.£7.£!,  x£pi  'jij-olv  o'j  [J."/)  a£  avw  o'j^i  o'j  lyxaTalixco 

Our  author  is  probably  borrowing  here  from  Ps.  55  ;  22. 

(48)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  Heb.  13 ;  24 

(49)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  Heb.  13 ;  24 

dydTTT]!; 

These  greetings  are  common  in  the  Pauhne  literature.     Cf.  Rom. 
16  ;  16,  Phil.  4  ;  21-22,  II  Cor.  13  ;  12-13,  etc. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


491 


Order  of  Parallels. 


I  Pet. 


Heb. 


I  Pet. 


Heb. 


I  Pet. 


1  1 

2  1 


1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

8  1 

9  1 

10  1 

11  1 

12  1 

13  2 
14 
15 
16 
17 


2  = 

3  = 

4  = 
6  = 

8  = 

9  = 

11  = 

12  = 
15  = 
17  = 
18f. 
21  = 
1  = 

2  : 
O   = 

5  = 

5  -- 


12 
6 
9 
12 
11 
10 
12 
11 
12 
12 

:  9 

2 

12 

5 

6 

3 

13 


24 

18 

15 

11 

27 

36 

2 

13 

14 

28 

12f. 

9 

1 

12 

5 

6 

15 


18  2 

19  2 

20  2 

21  2 

22  2 

23  2 

24  3 

25  3 

26  3 

27  3 

28  3 

29  3 

30  3 

31  3 

32  3 

33  4 


9  = 
11  = 
22  = 
22  = 

24  = 

25  = 

9  = 
11  = 
16  = 
18  = 
18b= 

20  = 

21  = 

22  = 
i  = 


12 

11 

12 

4 

9 

13 

11 

12 

12 

13 

9 

12 

11 

10 

1 
/. 


28 

13 

3 

15 

28 

20 

9 

17 

14 

18 

28 

22 

7 

22 

2f. 

12 


34  4 

35  4 

36  4 

37  4 

38  4 

39  4 

40  4 

41  4 

42  5 

43  5 

44  5 

45  5 

46  5 

47  5 

48  5 


2 

5 

7 

8 

9 

11 

14 

17 

4 

4 

7 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 


Heb. 
9  ;  14 


13 
10 
13 
13 
13 
13 
10 
13 
2 
13 
12 
13 
13 
13 
13 


17 

25 

1 

2 

21 

13 

21 

20 

7.  9 

5 

8 

20 

22 

24 

24 


CONCLUSION 


The  many  suggestive  parallels  between  these  two  Epistles  would 
form  a  conclusive  argument  for  literary  dependence,  were  we  not 
certain  that  they  both  rest  upon  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  It  is  diffe- 
cult  to  determine  whether  one  author  is  drawing  from  Paul  independ- 
ently or  at  the  suggestion  of  the  other.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  tel]  whether 
one  is  drawing  directly  from  the  other  or  whether  they  are  expressing 
thought  due  to  a  common  background.  Through  this  labyrinth 
of  possibilities  we  can  only  hope  to  discover  a  somewhat  circuitous 
trail.  From  the  marked  text  on  page  101  f.  it  would  appear  that  these 
authors  sometimes  fo]low  paths  over  which  Paul  had  never  traveled. 
Since  these  paths  are  quite  clearly  defined  in  some  instances  of 
resemblance  here  one  may  readily  infer  that  there  is  some  literarj^ 
connection  between  I  Peter  and  Hebrews. 

Furthermore  there  are  places  where  we  were  led  to  believe  that 
one  author  pointed  out  the  Pauline  path  to  the  other.  In  view  of 
the  many  striking  parallels  one  is  tempted  to  assert  that  these  Epistles 
show  a  direct  literary  connection.  Though  the  case  seems  very 
certain,  the  complication  of  possibilities  lessens  the  degree  of  cer- 
tainty until  it  would  seem  advisable  to  claim  no  more  than  that  one 
author  very  probably  kne^\'  the  work  of  the  other. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  33  January,  1913. 


492  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

The  next  question  to  be  determined  is  the  order  of  probable  dep- 
endence. We  have  noted  several  points  in  the  discussion  where 
Hebrews  more  probably  blazed  the  way  for  our  author.  Cf.  Exs. 
2,  4,  5,  8,  18,  22,  etc.  Hebrews  is  a  carefully  thought  out  homily, 
logical  and  rethorical,  whereas  I  Peter  is  halting  in  its  logic  and  dis- 
connected at  many  points.  In  contrast  to  the  former  the  latter  is 
a  mere  literary  mosaic.  Instances  are  not  wanting  in  which  the 
contexts  of  the  members  of  the  parallels  considered  show  Hebrews 
to  be  the  more  original.  For  instance,  in  Ex.  6  it  will  be  noted  that 
Noah  is  referred  to  in  Hebrews  as  but  one  of  a  long  list  of  ancient 
worthies,  whereas  I  Peter  alludes  to  him  as  if  at  the  suggestion  of 
another.     Cf.  Exs.  1,  10,  11,  13,  14,  15,  20,  etc. 

It  can  hardly  be  accidental  that  Hebrews  12—13  contain  26  of  the 
49  possible  points  of  contact  with  I  Peter.  The  first  8  chapters  contain 
but  9  points  of  contact,  whereas  the  last  4  chapters  have  40.  Appar- 
ently then  our  author  used  that  part  of  Hebrews  most  which  is  in 
closest  harmony  with  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  writing,  i.  e. 
to  strengthen  and  encourage  the  Christians  during  a  fiery  perse- 
cution. 

Although  much  of  the  thought  and  phraseology  of  these  books 
may  be  due  to  common  dependence  upon  Paul  or  to  a  common 
background,  it  would  seeem  that  we  are  justified  in  claiming  that 
our  author  was  very  probably  acquainted  with  Hebrews. 


"  Q  "  SOURCE 
D 
d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  6,  8  Mt.  .5 ;  11,  12  =  Lk.  6 ;  22,  23 

Bsov  'kwrzr^b'iv'zzc  sv  TioixtXoi;  r^zi-  u[xS.i  xai  Bioj^wo'tv  xat,  zitzoxtiv 
paTjj.oT?  ...  8  o^yo0.7.iS.TZ  X^^p^  ^°^^  "ovTjpov  xa&'  u[j.wv  ^zo^ojjmi. 
av£xla}>rjT(o  /aips-s  y.cci  ayalT^iaTO-s 

' AyoOXiotfjb-z  serves  as  a  catch  word.  Though  a  rare  word  in  the 
N.  T.  it  does  not  show  dependence.  Cf.  Lk.  1  ;  47,  10  ;  21,  Acts  2  ;  26, 
16  ;  34,  Rev.  19  ;7,  Jn.  5  ;  35,  8  ;  56.  The  word  does  not  occur  in  the 
parallel  account  in  Luke.  There  is  no  more  reason  to  suppose 
that  our  author  was  influenced  by  "  Q  "  at  this  point  than  by  Paul 
Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  12,  Phil.  3  ;  1,  4  ;  4,  I  Thes.  5  ;  17,  etc. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  493 

(2)  I  Pt.  1  ;  10  Mt.  13  ;  17  =  Lk.  10 ;  24 

o:j"/.  sTBav 

This  is  indeed  a  suggestive  parallel.  If  there  is  any  literary 
dependence  it  must  be  on  the  side  of  our  author,  as  "  Q  "  surely 
antedates  our  Epistle  some  decades.  But  the  thought  is  not  close 
enough  to  make  this  probable.  Cf.  Eph.  3  ;  3  f .  Col.  1  ;  25,  Rom. 
16  ;  25,  Eph.  1  ;  9,  etc. 

(3)  I  Pt    1 ;  17  Mt.  6 ;  9  =  Lk.  11 ;  2 

xai  zl  "aTspa  ir^i'/.T-Xziab-t  [0'j'7(');    o3v    7:poo"£tjy£G'8"£]    'jixeTc' 

"=^-P  ... 
Harnack,  in  his  "  Sayings  of  Jesus"  p.  134,  does  not  place  the 
bracketed  phrase  in  the  "  Q  "  source,  as  A.  Huck  seems  to  do  in 
his  "  Synopse  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien  "  s.  28.  At  all  events, 
this  parallel  has  no  evidential  value  in  the  solution  of  our  problem, 
though  Bigg,  Chase  and  Holtzmann  point  it  out. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  Mt.  5  ;  39  =  Lk.  6 ;  29 

[j.Y]  azoBi^ov-sc  xa/wOv  avTi  xaxoO  "Oo-ti?  az  pa7:{^£i,  dc,  tt,v  [B^liav], 
•?)  }.otBopiav  avTt,  V^iBopiac  tod-  o-iaYova  [crou],  G"Tp£^ov  a'jTco  xai 
^cK.'z-iov  Be  E'jAoyoijvTEc.    Cf.  3  ;  16.      tTjV  aUrjv. 

Cf.  Mt.  5  ;  44  =  Lk.   6  ;  28. 

The  doctrine  of  "  nonresistance  "  is  clearly  set  forth  in  both 
instances,  but  the  words  in  which  it  is  couched  are  very  different 
and  not  at  all  suggestive  either  of  dependence  or  of  a  common  source. 
A  close  parahel  appears  in  the  Markan  source,  i.  e.  15  ;  29.  The 
doctrine  here  taught  is  not  wholly  new  in  the  N.  T.,  e.  g.  Prov.  17  ; 
13,  20  ;  22,  24  ;  29,  etc.  As  we  have  seen  elsewhere  I  Peter  most 
certainly  depends  upon  Rom.  12,  so  we  need  not  go  back  of  Paul  for 
the  doctrine  taught  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  9.  See  Rom.  12  ;  17, 19,  I  Thes.  5  ;  15, 
I  Cor.  6  ;  7,  etc.  Though  Chase,  Bigg,  Holtzmann,  Monnier  and 
others  have  pointed  out  the  above  parallel  it  does  not  so  much  as 
prove  a  common  source. 

^5)  I  Pt.  3;  20  Mt.  24;  37,  38  =  Lk.  17;  26 

-zoo  0£Otj   [j.axpoQ"j[j.ia  sv   /([j-lpai?      coG--£p  al  r^ixi^ca  Toti  N(0£ 

N(0£ 

Though  the  reference  to  Tat?  ^xz^mc  N(o£  suggests  some  Hterary 
connection,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  phrase  occurs  in  contexts 


494  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

which  have  nothing  else  in  common.  Our  author  thinks  of  the  ark 
as  a  symbol  of  salvation  by  water  baptism,  whereas  Q  alludes  to 
the  unconcern  of  Noah's  contemporaries  in  view  of  the  approaching 
destruction  as  analogous  to  the  conditions  at  the  imminent  parousia. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  necessary  connection  between  these  passages. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  10  Mt.  24 ;  45  =  Lk.  12 ;  42 

XaT£(7TYj(7£V    6    V.(i^iOC,   i%\    'VT^C,    OtX£- 
•TY]V    TpOCpYjV    £V    Xatpw 

Clearly  this  parallel,  cited  by  Dean  Plumtre,  does  not  show  the 
dependence  of  our  Epistle  upon  "  Q  "  to  be  any  more  probable  than 
upon  Paul.     Cf.  I  Cor.  4  ;  1,  2,  Tit.  1  ;  7. 

(7)  I  Pt.  5;  6  Mt.  23;  12  =  Lk.  14;  11 

TaxsivwB^TS    o3v    uizo    ttjV    xpa-      "Og"tic  O'^toiati  latjTov  TaTrsivfoB-iQcrs- 

Tatav  /^sTpa  tolS  0£Ou,  hoc  'j[j.ac  xat,,  xai  ottic  TaTcetvcocsi  lauxov 
i)i)b)crri  £V  xaipw  6d»coOTj<j£Tai 

Chase,  Holtzmann,  Monnier  and  others  have  recorded  this  very 
suggestive  parallel.  The  citation  in  "  Q  "  resembles  the  thought  of 
our  Epistle  at  this  point  more  than  any  other  N.  T.  passage.  But 
that  the  Christian  should  be  humble  is  a  very  common  teaching  in 
the  Pauline  Epistles.  Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  16,  II  Cor.  7  ;  6,  10  ;  1,  11  ;  7, 
12  ;  21,  Eph.  4  ;  2,  Phil.  2  ;  3,  8,  4  ;  12,  Col.  2  ;  18,  23,  3.;  12.  etc. 
II  Cor.  11  ;  7  is  a  very  close  parallel  to  I  Pt.  5  ;  6.  This  logion 
pertains  to  social  distinctions  whereas,  I  Peter  alludes  to  the  Christi- 
ans' resignation  during  the  fiery  ordeal  of  persecution,  which  is 
viewed  as  a  providential  neans  of  exaltation.  Consequently  there  is 
not  such  a  close  resemblance  here  as  at  first  appears.  Hence  it 
cannot  be  asserted  from  this  parallel  that  our  author  was  acquainted 
with  "  Q,"  nor  that  he  remembered  a  saying  that  he  had  heard  from 
the  lips  of  Jesus, 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  8  Mt.  5 ;  25  =  Lk.  12 ;  58 
6  avTtSixoc                                           "zoi  avTtBtxco 

Dean  Plumtre  gives  this  among  other  resemblances  to  show  that 
"  one  of  the  most  dominant  influences  upon  St.  Peter  was  the  per- 
sonal teaching  of  our  Lord."  But  it  would  seem  that  a  single  word 
like  this,  occurring  as  it  does  in  contexts  differing  so  widely,  could 
no  real  evidential  value. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  495 

(9)  I  Pt.  5;  10  Mt.  7;  25  =  Lk.  6;  48 

Granting  that  this  word  belonged  originally  in  I  Peter,  we  should 
still  have  to  question  the  propriety  of  considering  it  as  a  datum  to  proove 
that  "  Peter  was  influenced  by  the  personal  teaching  of  our  Lord." 
Especially  is  it  hazardous  to  depend  upon  this  "  datum,"  since 
many  of  the  best  Manuscripts  do  not  contain  the  word.  See  W.  H. 
in  loco. 

It  seems  quite  clear  from  the  above  study  that  we  cannot  claim 
either  that  there  is  any  literary  connection  between  "  Q  "  and  I  Peter 
or  that  they  both  go  back  to  a  common  source. 


MARKAN  SOURCE 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18  Mk.  10  ;  45     (Mt.  20  ;  28) 

s).UTpo')Q'TjT£  .  .  .  TtfjLwo  atij.aft  .  .  .  Bouvai  ty]v  ']>u/y)v  a'jToii  I'j-rpov 
XpiairoO  avTi  xoaT^wv.     Cf.  Mk.  14  ;  24. 

The  Markan  source  represents  "  the  life  of  the  Son  of  Man  "  to 
be  the  "  ransom,"  whereas  our  author  alludes  to  the  redemption 
price  in  symbolic  terms,  i.  e.  "  the  precious  blood  of  Christ."     I  Tim 

2  ;  6.  Tit.  2  ;  14,  Gal.  1  ;  4,  2  ;  20,  Rom.  4  ;  45,  etc.  resemble  the 
thought  of  Mark  more  closely,  but  Eph.  1  ;  7,  5  ;  2,  Col.  1  ;  14,  Rom. 

3  ;  24,  25,  Acts  5  ;  2,  etc.  are  closer  to  I  Peter.  Cf.  also  Heb.  9  ;  12. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  here  heard 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  No  one  can  be  certain  as  to  the  genuineness 
of  Mk.  10  ;  45,  yet  it  is  conceded  by  the  majority  of  modern  scholars 
to  be  more  in  accord  with  the  theology  of  Paul  than  with  what  we 
know  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  himself.  That  i\Iark  was 
a  disciple  of  Paul  we  are  assured.  Cf.  Acts  12  ;  25.  All  things 
considered  there  is  no  reason  to  claim  that  there  is  here  any  literary' 
connection.  There  is,  however,  an  obvious  Pauline  influence  back 
of  the  members  of  this  parallel. 

(2)  1  Pt.  1;  18b  Mk.  7;  3  (Mt.  15;  26) 

iraTpoTcapaBoTOu  ~ry    TcapaBoo-iv    twv    -psTjSijTspcov 

This  parallel  of  Dean  Plumtre's  need  not  detain  us. 


496  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23  Mk.  4  ;  14  (Mt.  13  ;  18  f.  =  Lk.  8  ;  12f .) 

a^vaysYevvrj^jivoi     o'jx     sx.    CTCOpa?      6  TTCstpojv  Xoyov  azzipzi  ff. 
<p8>apT"?)?  .  .  .  Bta   Tvoyou  toO  0£ou 

Bigg  thinks  that  there  is  some  connection  here.  But  cf.  I  Cor. 
4  ;  15,  Gal.  3  ;  16,  26,  29,  4  ;  19,  etc.  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  our  author  depends  upon  Mark  at  this  point  nor  that  both  draw 
from  a  common  source. 

(4)  I  Pfc.  2  ;  2  Mk.  10  ;  15  (Mt.  18  ;  2  =  Lk.  18  ;  17) 

w?  apTiysvvTjTa  ppscpv]  -o  Xoyiy/y^  oc  av    [j.r,   Bscr^Tat   tyjv    [jocjO.tiocv 

aBoAov  yoO^rx.  sTciTcoO'YiTa-s,  ivx  £v  Totj  0ooO  CO?  TcaiBiov,   o'j    [XT,    d<y- 

auTw  a'JCY)9>7]T£  £??  C!"(oTr,ptav  eXQ-yj  £i$  a'jT"^v 

Chase  notices  this  parallel  but  he  does  not  advance  it  as  an  argu- 
ment for  literary  dependence.  Closer  resemblances  both  in  thought 
and  phraseology  are  to  be  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Cf .  I  Cor. 
3  ;  If.,  14  ;  20,  Eph.  4  ;  14,  etc. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2  ;  7  Mk.  12  ;  10  (Mt.  21 ;  42  =  Lk.  20  ;  12) 

"Xib-oc  ov  a7:£Boxiij.aa'av  oi  oixo-  }a&-ov  6v  a-£Boxt[j-ao-av  ol  oIko- 
BojxoQvTSi;  obxo^  £Y£vrjOT,  zlc  X£cpa-  Bo^j-oOvte?,  o5to;  iytYCib^  zlc,  y.c- 
Xriv  ywviai;  cpaXYjv  ycovia; 

Verbal  agreement,  in  tliis  quotation  from  Ps.  118  ;  22,  leads  us 
to  suspect  that  some  literary  connection  exists  in  this  parallel.  Yet 
there  is  nothing  in  the  contexts  which  suggests  it.  Mark  also  quotes 
Ps.  118  ;  23,  showing  that  he  is  probably  following  the  original 
independently.  Our  Epistle,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  surely 
depends  upon  Rom.  9  •;  33  and  Eph.  2  ;  20—22  at  this  point.  Assum- 
ing that  this  is  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus,  as  it  purports  to  be,  we  still 
have  no  special  reason  to  conclude  that  Peter  is  the  common  source 
back  of  these  quotations. 

(6)  I  Pt.  2  ;  13,  17  Mk.  12  ;  17  (Mt.  22  ;  21  =  Lk.  20  ;  26) 

UTcoTrayrjTE    7;aoT|    av&"pw7:ivTi    xti-      'zcc  K.cdmxr^rjr  ciTzohoxz  KaiTapi  xai 

(7£t     BlOC     TOV     X^jptOV      £IT£     yfXGO.zt        TOC    T03    0£O3    TW    Hew 
(j)$     !JTC£p£/OVTl      £IT£     T,Y£[J-6<j!,V      17 

Tov   0£6v  cpo[3£T<7Q^E,    Tov    |ja<7i)ia 

Tl[Jl,aT£ 

This  parallel  is  very  suggestive,  yet  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Rom. 
13  ;  1  is  even  more  suggestive  of  our  Epistle.  There  is  practically 
nothing  in  the  immediate  context  in  Mark  to  suggest  I  Peter,  whereas 
Rom.    12—13    has   numerous    points    of   probable    connection.     Cf. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  497 

especially  Rom.  13  ;  1,  G,  1,  8  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  13,  17.  Certainly  there 
are  more  obvious  reasons  for  believing  that  our  author  was  influenced 
at  this  point  by  Paul  than  by  Mark  or  the  Petrine  source  back  ot 
Mark.     ]\Iark  in  like  manner  may  equally  be  dependent  upon  Romans. 

(7)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21  Mk.  8 ;  34  (Mt.  10 ;  38  =  Lk.  W  ;  23) 

XpiCTOc   £7:a!>£v    UTZsp    !j[j.(ov,   'jij.Tv  zX   TIC    O'sAsi    brlrn,)     ij.ou    V/Jj-zvy, 

'jT^oh.\ix6LV(<iV  ■j:iOYpa[j.[j.6v  tva  sxa-  a-apvTjTa'jD'O)    sauxov    /.al    apaTo> 

xo^.o'jO'fj'rrjTs    toT?    Xyyzaiv    a'jiroLi  tov    crTaupov    a'JTOu    xai    axc/7.o'j- 

Dean  Plumtre  thinks  that  this  is  one  of  "  Peter's  reminiscences  of 
the  Lord's  teaching.".  But  the  thought  and  phraseology  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  21a 
is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  render  such  a  view  tenable. 
Furthermore  the  i/vo?  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  21  b  occurs  only  here  and  in  Rom.  4  ; 
12  and  II  Cor.  12  ;  18,  in  which  places,  significantly  enough,  it 
is  employed  in  the  same  sense  in  which  our  author  uses  it.  Hence 
it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  these  scriptures  come 
from  a  common  Petrine  source. 

^8)  I  Pt.  2  ;  23  Mk.  14 ;  61,  15 ;  5  (Mt.  27 ;  14) 

6?  XoiBopo'J[j.$voLic  o^x  avTsXot,-  6  Bs  satco^a  xai  cjx  axexpivaxo 
Sopst,  ~a<7/(ov  o!jx  Yj^eilsi  ouBsv.     6  Bs  'ItjO"0!jc  ouxsxt,  o'jBsv 

axsxpiOTj 

Our  author  is  drawing  from  Isa.  53  all  through  this  section.  Cf. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  23  with  Isa.  53  ;  7.  The  word  }^o!,Bop£co  is  not  found  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  it  is  used  in  I  Cor.  4  ;  12  and  in  the 
Pauline  portion  of  Acts  (23  ;  4).  AoiBopoa  is  used  only  by  Paul 
and  our  author,  while  >>oiBopo?  is  only  to  be  found  in  I  Cor.  5  ; 
11,  6  ;  10.  'Av-!,}vOtBopo;  is  peculiar  to  above  citation.  Hence  this 
would  be  a  slender  thread  on  which  to  suspend  an  argument 
either  for  literary  dependence  or  a  common  source. 

(9)  I  Pt.  2  ;  24  Mk.  15 ;  15  (Mt.  27  ;  26) 

oS  Tw  [j.(o>>(07U!,  laO'YjTs.  xapsBwxsv  Tov  'ItjitoIjv    cppayslXo)- 

Cf.  Isa.  53  ;  5.  Ta? 

Again  we  cannot  follow  Plumtre  in  his  "  reminiscences  of  St. 
Peter."  The  language  of  Mk.  15  ;  15  is  much  more  in  accord  with 
a  real  reminiscence  than  I  Pt.  2  ;  24.  The  quotation  from  Isaiah 
seems  to  indicate  that  our  author  was  musing  on  the  picture  of  the 
"  Suffering  Servant  "  of  II  Isaiah  rather  than  upon  the  concrete 
instance  depicted  in  Mark. 


498  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(10)  T  Pt.  2 ;  25  Mk.  6 ;  34  (Mt.  9 ;  36  =  Lk.  15 ;  4) 

}^oi:  £7r£aTpacpY]TS   vuv  sm    tov  ttoi-      [jiva 
[j.Eva  xai  smTxoTcov  rwv  ^u/wv  upLwv 

Chase  records  this  striking  parallel,  yet  he  is  unable  to  find  any 
evidence  in  it  for  literary  dependence.  The  quotation  in  Mark  does 
not  claim  to  have  come  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  consequently  it  is 
a  later  interpretation  in  accord  with  the  O.  T.  symbohsm.  Cf. 
Num.  27  ;  17,  I  Ki.  22  ;  17,  Ezek.  34  ;  6,  37  ;  24,  Zech.  10  ;  2,  etc. 
See  Isa.  53  ;  6  for  the  probable  original  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  25. 

(11)  I  Pt.  4  ;  7  Mk.  13  ;  33  (Mt.  24  ;  42  =  Lk.  12  ;  37) 

TuavTtov  Bs  TO  Tzkoc,  7]YYix£v.  [J).£TC£T£  uy^oiv^zixt  o'M  ol'SocxE  yap 
aw^^oyi^GOL'^t  o3v  xai  v'f\^oi'xt  tic,  r.oxz  6  xaipoc  [ecttiv].  Cf.  Mt.25  ; 
TcpoffEU/a?  13,  26 ;  41  and  Lk.  21  ;  34. 

Though  the  thought  here  is  much  the  same  the  phraseology  is 
very  different.  Exhortations  to  watchfulness  in  view  of  the  appro- 
aching parousia  were  too  common  during  the  early  period  for  this 
parallel  to  be  of  any  evidential  value  either  for  dependence  or  for 
a  common  source.     Cf.  Rom.  13  ;  11,  I  Thes.  5  ;  6  f.,  etc. 

(12)  I  Pt.  5  ;  3  Mk.  10  ;  42  (Mt.  20 ;  25  =  Lk.  22  ;  24) 

^:f^  (oc  xaTax!jpi£'JovT£c  Ttov  xAr^-  OiBaTE  OTi  ot  BoxoOvtec  ap/Eiv 
pcov  .  .  .  Tcov  e&'Vcov  xaTax'jpiE'Jo'jTtv  a'jTwv 

xai  01  [j.EyaXoi  a'jTwv  xaT£'|oua"t,a- 

'Corjaiy  a'jTwv 

Ka^ax-jpiEUO)  is  a  rare  word  in  the  N.T.,  yet  it  is  not  sufficient 
in  these  contexts  to  make  literary  acquaintance  probable.  The 
reference  in  I  Peter  could  have  been  suggested,  quite  as  naturally, 
by  II  Cor.  1  ;  24  or  Ezek.  34  ;  4. 

A  study  of  the  above  points  of  contact  (which,  it  is  believed, 
exhaust  the  more  important  ones)  shows  that  the  Pauline  Literature, 
upon  which  we  are  quite  sure  our  author  depends,  furnishes,  in  nearly 
every  instance,  equally  close  thought  and  phraseology  :  and  in 
not  a  few  cases  is  the  resemblance  even  more  striking.  It  has  also 
been  seen  that  Mark  has  been  influenced  by  Paul.  Whether  or  not 
Mark  and  I  Peter  alike  go  back  to  Peter,  we  are  quite  sure  that  they 
are  deeply  indebted  to  Paul.  At  all  events  literary  dependence  can- 
not be  claimed  between  I  Peter  and  the  Markan  Source. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  499 

PECULIAR  TO  MATTHEW 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  4  Mt.  25 ;  34 

zlc,  xXy)povo[xtav  .  .  .  Ts—rjprjijivrjV  x7.r|povo[j."/)G-!XT£  tyjv  T^TOiij.ac-ijivrjV 
£V  o'jpavoij?  SIC  !j[j.ac.     Cf.  3;9b.      fjij.Tv     pao-tlsiav     a-o     /.xTa|jo}.-^c 

K7vrjpovo[j-siv  with  its  family  is  a  ver}'  common  word  in  the  N.  T., 
especially  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  "Inheriting  the  Kingdom"  is 
mentioned  in  I  Cor.  6  ;  10,  15  ;  50,  Gal.  5  ;  21,  Eph.  5  ;  5.  That 
the  "inheritance  is  laid  up  in  heaven"  is  also  alluded  to  in  Col. 
1  ;  5  and  inferred  in  Eph.  1  ;  14.  'E-oifJtaro)  is  a  common  word 
in  the  Gospels,  but  rare  elsewhere,  occurring  in  the  Pauline  Epistles 
only  three  times  and  in  I  Peter  not  at  all.  Therefore  literarj^ 
dependence  cannot  be  argued  from  this  parallel. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Mt.  16 ;  18 

wc  AiQ'Oi  ^wvTsc  oixoBoij-sTtS'S  oTxoc  (j'j  sT  ITs-rpo?,  xai  IrX  Ta-J'^r-r)  t:y] 
TTVsujj.aTix.oc  .  .  .  -£Tpa  oixoBoixrjTco  [j.oO  tt;/  zv.yS}:r^- 

Ttav  .  .  . 

The  change  of  Simon's  name  to  ss^D  or  Hsirpoi;,  and  the  allusion 
to  IvySkr^aiy.  lead  many  to  think  that  there  is  here  an  anachronism. 
Unfortunately  the  Siniatic  Syriac  (Ss)  fails  us  at  this  point.  Both 
the  Curetonian  (Sc)  and  the  Peshito  (P)  follow  the  Greek  text  in 
using  -.Lt^  .  We  have  concluded  elsewhere  that  our  Epistle  de- 
pends upon  Rom.  9  ;  33  and  Eph.  2  ;  20-21  at  this  point,  so  if 
either  of  these  authors  influenced  the  other,  Matthew  is  the  bor- 
rower. Knowing  what  we  do  about  the  rapidly  developing  tradition 
of  the  early  church  we  should  conclude,  apart  from  literary  con- 
siderations, that  the  thought  of  Mt.  16  ;  18  antedates  our  Epistle. 
Therefore  we  cannot  so  much  as  argue  a  common  source  for  these 
scriptures. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Mt.  5 ;  16 

TTjV  avacTpotpTjV  'jp-wv  sv  sO-vscriv  o'jto)?  }xa[j.'|ia':c>)  to  '.pw;  'j'j.wv 
s^ovTS?  xcckr^v  hcc,  .  ,  .  sx  twv  xa-  sjj.-poG-O'SV  twv  av8^p(07:(ov  o~(o; 
>>wv  spYwv  sTCOTCTStJovTsc  Bo^dcctoG-i,  iBwciv  zee  xa},a  Ipya  xai  Bo^acrojo-iv 
Tov  Bsov  Tov     Tcarspa     'jij.fov    tov    sv     toT; 

oupavoTc 

Mt.  5  ;  16  resembles  our  Epistle  at  this  })oint  more  closely  than 
any  other  N.  T.  passage.     It  is  quite  natural  to  suppose  that  INIatthew 


500  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

preserves  a  genuine  logion  of  our  Lord,  which  was  current  in  the 
church,  but  which  was  not  used  by  the  other  Synoptic  writers.  Yet 
the  form  in  which  the  thought  is  expressed  suggests  that  there  is 
here  no  literary  connection. 

(4)  1  Pt.  3 ;  14  a  Mt.  5 ;  10 

[xaxaptoi  Bi/vaioT'JvY]!: 

This  parallel  may  be  accounted  for  in  the  same  way  as  No.  3.  Cer- 
tainly no  one  will  affirm  that  these  must  go  back  to  a  common 
origin. 

(5)  I  Pt.  3 ;  14  b  Mt.  10 ;  26 

[j-TiBs  TapayO-YJTS 

Chase  calls  our  attention  to  this  parallel,  yet  he  is  unable  to  find 
in  it  any  evidence  for  literary  acquaintance.  The  resemblance  can 
hardly  be  more  than  a  mere  coincidence. 

We  may  conclude  from  the  above  possible  points  of  contact  that 
there  is  nothing  peculiar  to  Matthew  which  warrants  any  claim  for 
literary  acquaintance. 


PECULIAR  TO  LUKE 
D 

d 
(1)  I  Pt.  1;  11  Lk,  24;  26 

7;v£tj[JLa  Xpto-iTOiI  7:po[j.apT'jp6[j.£vov  o'j/\  Ta-jTa  sBsi  TraO-sTv  tov  /pto-- 
Toc  £?$  XpicTTov  7:a8'T,p-aTa  xai  toc;  tov  xal  €\.r;z}h-ixy  zkc,  tt;/  Bo^av 
[xsTa  TauTa  Bo^ac.     Cf.  v.  21.  a'jTO^.     Cf.  vv.  44,  46. 

This  close  parallel  suggests  Uterary  dependence.  Acts  26  ;  22, 
23,  which  is  in  a  "  speech  of  Paul,"  also  resembles  our  Epistle  very 
much  at  this  point.  That  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  foretold  was 
a  common  doctrine  :  belief  in  his  subsequent  glorification  also  grew 
up  very  early.  Consequent^  there  need  be  no  Uterary  connection 
here,  though  the  thought  is  very  suggestive.  Both  passages  bear 
evidence  of  Pauline  influence. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  501 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  Lk.  12 ;  35 

Certainly  this  parallel,  cited  by  Holtzmann  and  Plumtre,  need  not 
detain  us.  The  phrase  is  not  of  the  sort  that  suggests  dependence 
Furthermore,  a  closer  resemblance  to  our  Epistle  here  is  to  be  found 
in  Paul.  Cf.  Eph.  6  ;  14,  which  uses  the  common  phrase  in  a  tropical 
sense  more  in  accord  with  I  Pt.  1  ;  18  than  with  Lk.  12  ;  35. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  b  Lk.  17 ;  30 

The  a-oxa/.'j'kc  of  Christ  is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to 
make  it  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  there  is  any  literary  con- 
nection here.     Cf.  II  Thes.  1  ;  7,  I  Cor.  1  ;  7,  I  Thes.  4 ;  16,  etc. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Lk.  10 ;  44 

That  the  word  l^rioy.oTzri  is  used  in  this  sense  only  in  these  two 
places  in  all  the  N.  T.  seems  quite  significant.  It  would  not  be 
wise,  however,  to  place  too  much  stress  upon  this  usage,  which  is 
probably  accidental. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  23,  4 ;  19  Lk.  23 ;  46 

-apsBiBou  Bs   Tw  xptvovTi  Bixaiwc      llocTsp,    dc,   /sTpac   aou   ;:apaTi9-£- 
4  ;  19  7:117-0)  xTtTTYi  ;:apaTiS>£G'S<oj-      [j.m  to  ^v£U[xa  [xoit 
(Tav  -dec  'j'^/ac  .  .  . 

Though  ;:!zpaT[Q^Yl[j.!,  is  a  common  word  in  the  N.  T.,  it  is  em- 
ployed just  in  this  way  but  rarely.  I  Peter  uses  ~apaSiBwij.t  and 
T.ixpcczib-r^iJ.i  interchangeably,  consequently  this  resemblance  has  but 
little  value  as  a  datum  for  literary  dependence.  For  similar  usage 
of  xapaTiO-Tjp  see  Acts  14  ;  23,  20  ;  32.  Cf.  also  Acts  7  ;  59  for 
similar  idea. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Lk.  16 ;  2 

ol  d-oBcocc-'jciv  Aoyov  -roi  .  .  .  xpiv-      ocr^ohoc  tov  7.6^07    —^c    oixovopa? 

OVTl  ...  TO  "J 

Cf.  Mt.  12  ;  36,  22  ;  21,  Mk.  4  ;  20,  Acts  19  ;  40,  etc. 


502  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(7)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Lk.  7 ;  47 

xo'X7>ai,  OTi  YjYaTCYjasv  izoXd 

Occurring,  as  it  does,  in  a  context  so  thoroughly  Pauhne,  this 
quotation  from  Prov.  10  ;  12  very  probably  has  no  connection  with 
the  citation  in  Luke. 

(8)  I  Pt,  5 ;  1  Lk.  24 ;  48 

\x6ii^':\jc.  Twv  ToD  XpiaTO^  7raS>Yi[j.a-      u\xt(.c,  [j.api:up£?  toutwv 

Connection  here  is  very  dubious. 

Sir  John  Hawkins  shows  in  his  Horae  Synopticae  (p.  190  f.)  that 
Luke  is  linguistically  more  closely  related  to  Paul  than  either  of  the 
other  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  \dew  of  the  close  dependence  of  our 
Epistle  upon  Paul  we  should  be  surprised  not  to  find  close  parallels 
between  Luke  and  I  Peter.  Indeed,  these  likenesses  have  been  such 
as  lead  Bigg  to  say  that  "  I  Peter  shows  upon  the  whole  the  nearest 
resemblance  to  Luke  "  (i.  e.  of  the  Gospels).  In  favor  of  this  it  may 
also  be  said  that  the  hterary  style  of  Luke  and  I  Peter  is  much  the 
same.  Both  have  large  vocabularies.  They  very  frequently  employ 
compound  words.  They  have  an  abnormally  large  number  of  words 
peculiar  to  each,  as  well  as  common  to  each-.  Yet  with  all  these 
likenesses  we  cannot  claim  that  either  author  knew  the  work  of  the 
other. 

ACTS 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  4  Acts  20;  32 

dc  xlrjpovoij.iav  .  .  .  TS-:rjpYj[j.£VYjV  £v      Bofjvy.!,    ty;/    xAYjpovojjiav    sv    -oic, 
ou^oL'^rKc  £1?  'jp-ac  Y,YiaG"[J.£VOic  r^SLaiy 

Very  clearly  these  scriptures  come  from  the  same  circle  of  ideas. 
Acts  20  ;  32  purports  to  give  Paul's  own  words,  whereas  I  Peter, 
as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  very  probably  depends  directly  upon  Paul. 
Cf.  Eph.  1  ;  14,  Col.  1  ;  5,  11  Tim.  4 ;  8. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  11  Acts  26 ;  22-23 

Ttpo'-p'^Ta!,  .  .  .  xv£'j[j.a  Xpi'7-oil  ::po-      2>v  te  ol  Tvpocp'^Tai  IXaXYjCccv  \}.z\- 
ji.apTup4[J-£vov  TOC  dc  XptTTov  Tua-      AovTtov  yivEG-D-ai    aal   Mojuo-yJ?,    zl 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  503 

This  close  parallel  suggests  literary  dependence.  Obviously  the 
passage  in  Acts  is  closely  related  to  I  Cor.  15  ;  20  f.  Acts  3  ;  18  is 
also  a  close  parallel  to  I  Pt.  1  ;  Ha,  but  it  makes  no  reference  to 
Christ's  glorification  through  suffering.  Apparently,  therefore, 
the  citation  in  the  Pauline  portion  of  Acts  affords  the  closer  parallel, 
although  we  cannot  assert  that  it  shows  hterary  dependence. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  12  Acts  2 ;  4 

oupavou  ayioM 

The  doctrine  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  too  common  in  the  Pauline 
Literature  to  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  there  is  here 
any  literary  connection. 

(4)  I  Ft.  1 ;  14  Acts  17 ;  .30 

TaT?  T^poTspov  £v  T^  ayvoioc  'jij.wv      -oU?  o5v  /^povou?    'zr^c,    ayvoiac   6- 

£7Cl&'U[J.tat?  ^TSptBwV    6    0£OC  .   . 

It  seems  significant  that  ayvoia  occurs  in  "  Paul's  speech." 
Thought  resembhng  this  is  also  to  be  found  in  another  one  of  Paul's 
speeches,  i.  e.  Acts  14  ;  16.  These  passages  suggest  acquaintance, 
yet  our  Epistle  more  probably  depends  upon  Rom.  3  ;  25,  while  Acts 
17;  30  comes  from  the  "  /[xsT?  document,"  which  is  obviously  older 
than  I  Peter.  Literary  dependence,  therefore,  cannot  be  claimed 
for  these  passages. 

(5)  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  Acts  10 ;  34 

TcaTspa  .  .  .  Tuv     a7i:poc(o-o}.fj[j.7;-      oix  sttiv  7rpo'7co7:o}vT,[j.--rj?  6  O'so? 
TWi;  .  .  . 

That  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons  is  a  common  doctrine,  both 
in  the  N.  T.  and  contemporary  literature.  Neither  of  the  above 
words  expressing  this  idea  is  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  Paul 
uses  7upo(7Ci)7uo>.r,(|jt!a  in  Rom.  2  ;  11,  Eph.  6  ;  9  and  Col.  3  ;  25.  Rom.  2  ;  11 
alludes,  as  in  I  Peter,  to  the  impartial  judgment  of  God  ;  an  idea 
which  is  not  on  the  surface  in  Acts  10  ;  34.  The  story  of  Peter's 
visit  with  CorneUus  in  Acts  10  makes  Peter  the  Apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles very  early  in  his  ministerial  career,  whereas  we  are  told  in  Gal.  2 
that  this  vision  of  a  world  wide  mission  came  later  :  through  the  medi- 
ation of  Paul.  Consequently  we  are  certain  that  Pauline  influence 
is  not  wanting  here  in  Acts  10  ;  34.  There  is,  therefore,  no  literary 
relation  between  the  members  of  this  parallel. 


504  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18,  19  Acts  20 ;  28 

Since,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  I  Pt.  1  ;  18,  19  quite  certainly 
depends  upon  Paul  (cf.  Eph.  1  ;  7,  Col.  1  ;  14,  I  Cor.  6  ;  20,  7  ;  23, 
Gal.  3  ;  13),  and  since  the  account  in  Acts  comes  from  a  document 
which  antedates  I  Peter,  we  cannot  suppose  that  there  is  any  hterary 
connection  here. 

(7)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Acts  2 ;  32 

Osov  Tov  sysipavTa    a'jxov  ex  vs-     'ItiG-ouv  av£crTTja"£v  6  Gso?,  .  .  .  t9] 
xpwv  xai  B62av  a-jTw  ^ovxa  Bs^ta    o3v    tou  Bsotl    tj'iiojO-si?  .  .  . 

There  is  here  a  close  resemblance.  The  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection and  exaltation  of  Christ  is  too  common,  however,  to  permit 
us  to  use  this  parallel  as  an  argument  for  dependence.  Cf.  Acts  2  ; 
32,  3  ;  15,  4  ;  10,  10 ;  40,  13  ;  30,  34,  17  ;  31,  Rom.  4  ;  24,  8  ;  11, 
I  Cor.  6  ;  14,  15  ;  15,  II  Cor.  4  ;  14.  Gal.  1  ;  1,  Eph.  1  ;  20,  Col.  2; 
12,  I  Thes.  1  ;  10,  etc. 

(8)  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  b  Acts  15 ;  9 

tjTcaxoT]  TTj?  aCkfp-ziixc  a'jTwv 

The  reference  in  Acts  is  a  clear  allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  "  Justi- 
fication by  Faith,"  so  common  with  Paul,  whereas  the  citation  in 
I  Peter  shows  progress  in  the  Johannine  direction  ;  cf.  Jn.  14  ;  15, 
21,  23,  15  ;  7,  10,  I  Jn.  2  ;  5,  5  ;  3,  etc. 

(9)  I  Pt.  2;  7  Acts  4;  11 

yjS^oc,  6v  aTTsBoxCfxacav  oi  oixoBo-      6  7i9'Oc    6  tc.o'j^z'^r^iic,    'jcp    'j[xcov 

ytovia?  x£cpa).r,v  yomai; 

Ps.  118  ;  22  was,  during  the  early  history  of  the  church;  a  favorite 
proof  text  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Mark  12  ;  10,  followed  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  records  it  as  having  been  quoted  by  Jesus  with 
reference  to  himself.  It  is  significant  that  the  text  in  Mark  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  used  by  our  author,  whereas  the  text  used  in  the 
"  speech  in  Acts,"  which  purports  to  be  Peter's,  has  important  vari- 
ations. Assuming  the  historicity  of  Acts  4  ;  11,  tradition,  which 
tells  us  that  Mark  drew  from  Peter,  would  in  that  case  lead  us  to 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  505 

expect  closer  resemblance  between  Mark  and  Acts  than  between 
Mark  and  I  Feter,  since  we  are  quite  certain  that  the  latter  depends 
upon  Rom.  9  ;  33  and  Eph.  2  ;  20—22.  Granting  that  Jesus  did 
allude  to  this  Psalm,  there  would  be  no  reason  for  us  to  suppose  that 
there  is  any  literarj^  relation  between  Acts  and  I  Peter,  nor  need  we 
think  that  they  are  derived  from  a  common  source,  unless  Paul, 
upon  whom  I  Peter  surely  depends,  gained  his  information  from  Peter, 
which  he  would  seem  in  Gal.   1  ;  11  f.  to  repudiate. 

(10)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Acts  20 ;  28 

Connection  here  is  very  doubtful. 

(11)  I  Pt.  2;  9  b  Acts  26;  18 

TO-J  £X  T/Jj-ryj^  -jij.occ  '/.y^.i'j7.'/zrjC.^  TOL)  Z7:\.r>~zi'by.i  y.T.6  Gy^OTOu;  si$ 
zlc  ~b  b-y.'M.y(j-ry^  yjj-^yj  owr  •  oto? 

The  PauHne  source  is  too  obvious  here  to  require  comment.  Ci 
Eph.  5  ;  8,  Col.  1  ;  13,  I  Thes.  5  ;  4,  etc. 

(12)  I  Pt.  2;  12  Acts  24;  5 

sQ-VETtV    S/OVTSC    XalTjV,     IVOC,     £V    Cb         TOT?      'louBatOt;      TOT?       XaTOC      TYjV 

xaTa}^a}^ouG"iv  'j[j.wv  w^  /vocxo'otwv.      oixo'jasvTjV 
Cf.  3  ;  16. 

Apparently  there  is  here  no  direct  connection. 

(13)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Acts  4 ;  32 
TO  Bs  -£/,o;  ~avT£C  6[j.6opov£c             r;/  xapBia  xat,  'iy/"/)  [Jiia 

Though  the  thought  is  similar  the  phraseology  is  different.  Pauline 
influence  is  obvious  here.  Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  16,  15  ;  5,  6,  II  Cor.  13  ;  11, 
Phil.  1  ;  27,  2  ;  2,  3  ;  16. 

(14)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Acts  10 ;  36 

7:op£U&-£i(;  £??  oupavov  O-OTayevTcov      rj^^x^jc^  (T.  X.)  Ittiv  TudcvTOiv  Kupioi? 

a5~a)    aYY£}.cov   xal    Icouciwv    xai 

B'Jva[j.£cov 

For  closer  parallels  see  Eph.  1  ;  20-22,  Col.  1  ;  16  f.,  2  ;  15,  I  Cor. 
15  ;  24  f. 

(15)  1  Pt.  4;  1  Acts  17;  3 
XpicTToti  o5v  ;:aO'6vTO?  Tapxi  .  .          oti  tov  /piTTOv  eBei  TaQ-ETv 

This  thought  is  too  common  to  show  dependence. 


506  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(16)  I  Pt.  4;  3  Acts  14;  16 

apxsTO?  yap  6  Tzccpz'krikub-dic,  ypo-  6^   sv   zcac,   7iapw)rY)[jivaii;   ysvsaii; 

vo?  TO  j3ouXY][jLa  T7WV  sO'Vwv  xaTstp-  zXccGzv  Tcavxa  Ta   sQ^vyj  xopeuscrQ'a!, 

ydab'cci,    xs7vop£U[j.evoui;    sv    aasl-  toT?    6BoT(;    au-fiiv.       Cf.  15  ;  20, 

yeiaic  ...  17  ;  30. 

Again  the  Pauline  influence  is  obvious.  Cf.  Rom.  3  ;  25,  Eph.  2; 
2.  4 ;  17,  Col.  1  ;  21,  3  ;  7,  I  Thes.  4  ;  5.     See  also  Ex.  3  above. 

(17)  I  Pfc.  4 ;  4  Acts  13 ;  45 

|3>>a(7CpYl[J.OUV17£?  >>a>.OL»[jivOt?    [iXKCrCpYjjXOUVTS? 

(18)  I  Pt.  4;  5  Acts  10;  42 

TO)     STOIJJ-COC     XpiVOVTl     Zm^ZCCC     Xai        OOtOC     ICTTIV     6    Wpt(7[X£V0$     6x6    TOU 

vsxpoui;  ©sou  xpiTYJ^  (Co)VT(ov  xal  vexpwv 

This  parallel  affords  no  real  evidence  either  for  literary  dependence 
or  for  a  common  Petrine  source.  A  common  Pauline  source  seems 
more  apparent.  Cf.  Acts  17  ;  31,  Rom.  2  ;  16,  14  ;  10,  12,  II  Cor.  5; 
10,  II  Tim.  4  ;  1.  It  is  important  to  note  that  Acts  17  ;  31  comes 
from  a  much  better  source  than  Acts  10  ;  42. 

(19)  I  Pt.  4 ;  14  Acts  5 ;  41 

si  ovsiBi^saS'S  sv  ovojj-aTi  XpiaToO,  ol    [j.sv    o5v    sTuopsuovTo    y^aipovTsc 

[jLaxapioi  (16)  si  Bs  6)c  XpiG'Ttavoc,  utJj  .  .  .  oti    xaTYj'^tojO'rjirav    uxsp 

[JLYj  al<j/uvs(7&-(o,  Bo'^a^sTco    Bs    tov  tou  6v6[J-aTO?  aTt[j.acrD'r;vaf 
0s6v  sv  ~M  dv6[j-aTi  touto) 

"  Suffering  for  the  name  "  in  Acts  5  ;  41  is  obviously  an  anach- 
ronism. It  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  this  phrase  comes  from 
a  time  at  least  as  late  as  I  Peter.  The  resemblance  in  the  above 
parallel  seems  to  be  accounted  for  sufficiently  well  by  the  assumption 
that  these  passages  have  a  common  background.  Though  the 
conditions  are  different,  Paul  has  much  to  suggest  these  citations. 
Cf.  Rom.  5  ;  3,  Eph.  3  ;  13,  II  Cor.  12  ;  10,  Phil.  2  ;  17.  See  also 
Jas.  1  ;  2,  12.which  was  probably  written  soon  after  I  Peter.  Depen- 
dence upon  the  apostle  Peter  is  very  improbable  at  this  point. 

(20)  I  Pt.  5;  2  Acts  20;  28 

7uoi,[j.avai:s  to  sv  6[j.Tv  Tcotfj.vtov  -zoo  7:po<7s/^sTE  sauToT?  xai  xavTi  Toi 
©sou,  (sTCtfr/vOTTOUVTSc)  [j.T,  avay-  Tcotixviw,  sv  (T)  ujxac  to  Tcvsup.a  to 
xacTWi;  .  .  .  ayiov  sG'Sto  sxiirxoTiouc,  7to!,[j.atvsiv 

TYjV    SXX}^TjG'CaV 

This  parallel  is  very  close.  Though  this  "  charge "  may  not 
come  directly  from  Paul,  his  influence  upon  this  section  of  Acts 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  507 

is  obvious  and  in  ail  probability  he  prepared  the  way  for  the  suggestion 
in  our  Epistle,  which  the  author  of  the  Appendix  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel  wove  into  an  anecdote.  Mk.  14  ;  27  may  bear  some  relation 
to  these  passages.     Cf.  also  I  Pt.  2  ;  25. 

(21)  I  Pt.  5;  9  Acts  14;  22 

zU)6^Z(;  zee  (X'jzoc  xoiv    TraO-rjij.aTwv      xal  oiri    Sia   ttoW.wv    Q-'Xi'Jjsojv   BoT 

TY,    £V   TW   x6cr[J.(;)    6[XWV    OcZzkoOZCCVl        YJ^.S?    £l(7£}.0-£Tv     £??     TT^V     jja(J-l}.£tav 

£~lT£/^£T(7D'ai  TOU    (■)£0U 

In  both  members  of  this  very  suggestive  parallel,  to  which  Holtz- 
mann  calls  our  attention,  reference  is  made  both  to  continuing  in  the 
faith,  and  to  the  affhctions  that  are  rife.  Though  the  backgrounds 
are  different,  both  passages  show  Pauline  influence.  Cf.  Rom. 
8  ;  17,  Eph.  6  ;  11,  I  Thes.  3  ;  3,  II  Tim.  2  ;  11,  12,  3  ;  12,  etc.  It 
appears  that  there  is  no  direct  literary  connection  here. 

(22)  I  Pt.  5  ;  12      •  Acts  20  ;  24  b 

Xapiv  Tou  ©£0U  X^puo?  zoo  Qzoo 

The  PauUne  influence  is  too  obvious  here  to  require  comment. 
I  Cor.  15  ;  lb  not  only  has  close  resemblance  in  thought  to  the  above 
parallel  but  also  contains  the  phrase  "  wherein  ye  stand,"  which 
appears  in  I  Pt.  5  ;  12b. 

Acts  3  ;  13,  26,  4  ;  27,  30  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  21  f.  allude  to  the  r^rr  nny 
of  II  Isaiah.  The  title  r.caq  is  rarely  apphed  to  Christ.  It  is  im- 
portant to  note  that  the  death  of  the  "  suffering  servant  "  in  the 
early  chapters  of  Acts  has  no  atoning  significance  as  in  our  Epistle. 
Though  our  author  never  uses  the  title  tmc  zoo  0£oj  he  employs 
the  doctrine  of  the  "  suffering  servant  "  in  its  most  developed  form. 
I  Peter  does  not  rest  upon  Paul  here,  as  the  latter  rarely  alludes  to 
this  Isaianic  teaching.  Nor  do  these  passages  in  Acts  depend  upon 
I  Peter,  for  the  theology  of  the  former  is  quite  primitive.  Neither 
can  we  be  certain  that  there  is  a  common  source  back  of  the  scrip- 
tures in  question,  inasmuch  as  the  "  servant  "  is  alluded  to  so  differ- 
ently. 

Conclusion. 

Of  the  twenty-two  parallels  just  cited,  but  eight  are  in  the  Petrine 
portion  of  Acts,  and  in  almost  every  instance  equally  close  thought 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.     Of  course,   the  fourteen 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  VXIT.  34  January,  1913. 


508  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

parallels  in  the  non-Petrine  portion  of  Acts  all  show  strong  Pauline 
influence.  Our  study  has  revealed  many  suggestive  points  of  con- 
tact between  Acts  and  I  Peter,  yet  they  are  not  such  as  to  justify 
the  conclusion  that  one  author  knew  the  work  of  the  other.  If 
there  is  any  dependence  it  would  seem  that  "  Luke  "  is  the  borrower. 
It  is  generally  agreed  that  Luke,  the  author  of  the  "  we  document," 
was  a  disciple  of  Paul.  Our  author  also  appears  to  have  been  a 
student  of  Paul.  Consequently  these  authors  would  naturally  have 
similar  thoughts  and  forms  of  expression  and  still  be  independent 
of  each  other.  The  resemblances  between  I  Peter  and  Acts  1-12 
are  due,  it  would  seem,  not  to  a  common  Petrine  source,  but  (1)  to 
the  dependence  of  our  author  upon  the  Pauhne  Epistles  and  (2)  to 
the  influence  of  Paul  upon  the  author  of  Acts.  That  is  to  say,  the 
common  source  is  Pauhne  rather  than  Petrine. 


JAMES 
A* 

b 

^1^  I  Pt.  1 ;  6,  7  Jas.  1 ;  2,  3 

Iv  to  ayaWaaaQ-s,  oliyo^  apTi  zl  tmgcc^  yapcc^  rr(r,(yoc(yb'Z  ...  OTav 
B£ov  7.u7aiB-£vTS?  Iv  toixoIoi?  tcei-  TCSipaajj-oT?  r.e^izifyfi'zz  T.oiyS\oi<;  (3) 
pa<7[j.oTc  (7)  iva  to  Boyi[J.iov  u^j-wv  Yivc6(7>covt:£?  oti  to  Boxt^xiov  u[jmv 
TT,c  %ir;xtoK  '^i  m(7T£w?  xaTspya^s'^'' 

Nearly  all  commentators  have  recognized  a  dependence  between 
these  two  passages.  Mayor  says  :  "  it  is  proven  beyond  all  doubt 
bv  the  recurrence  in  both  phrases  tzoimIok;  xstpaapT?  and  to  Bo- 
xCpov  -J^j-wv  TT,?  TziG'tcoi  with  its  usual  order  of  words.  Assuming 
then,  as  we  must,  that  one  copied  from  the  other,  we  find  the 
trial' of  faith  illustrated  in  I  Peter  (as  in  Ps.  66  ;  10,  Prov.  17  ;  3, 
Job  23  ;  10,  Zech.  13  ;  9,  Mai.  3  ;  3)  by  the  trying  of  the  precious 
metals  in  the  fire  ;  we  find  also  the  addition,  oJlyo^  apTi,  zl  Bsov, 
Xu7c-/ia-£VT£?,  which  looks  as  if  it  were  intended  to  soften  down  the 
uncompromising  Stoicism  of  St.  James'  tmgccv  ycc^uv  r,yr,<7cccrb-s" . 
(Com.  on  Jas.  p.  xcvi.)  That  there  is  here  a  case  of  depen- 
dence, practically  all  agree,  yet  the  order  of  dependence  many 
question.  Ikipaa^xoTc  Tcoixaoi?  seems  somewhat  weak  prior  to  the 
Neronian  persecution,  which  is  assumed  in  the  argument,  inasmuch 
as  it  refers  in  I  Peter  to  "  trials  and  persecutions  of  the  Christi- 
ans". (For  TTstpacrp?  see  any  Gk.  Lex.  Cf.  also  Cone's  com. 
p.    273  ;     Schmidt    and    Holzendorf    Com.     Ill,     p.     158 ;     etc.) 


First  Epistle  of  Peter  509 

Against  the  argument  that  the  longer  form  in  I  Peter  is  a  proof 
of  its  priority  may  be  advanced  the  general  consensus  of  even  con- 
servative opinion  regarding  the  alleged  dependence  of  Romans 
and  Ephesians  on  I  Peter.  Cf.  Sanday's  Com.  on  Rom.  p.  Ixxvf. 
Many  of  the  "  illustrations  of  I  Peter,"  no  doubt,  were  originally 
from  the  0.  T.,  but  they  do  not  appear  to  have  been  dragged  in 
unnaturally.  They  have  been  called  out  by  a  concrete  situation, 
whereas  the  passage  in  James  is  lacking  not  only  in  local  coloring 
but  also  in  clearness  of  purpose.  The  phrase  alluded  to  above  may 
be  "  a  softening  down  of  James'  harder  expression,"  but  as  a  matter 
of  fact  the  tendency  was  towards  an  increase  in  the  fanaticism  for 
suffering  as  we  approach  the  second  Century.  Cf.  Acts  5  ;  41 
and  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Romans. 

Again,  in  I  Peter,  the  successful  endurance  of  the  present  trial 
has  an  important  bearing  on  the  condition  of  the  Christians  at  the 
imminent  "  parousia,"  a  most  vital  and  burning  issue,  whereas  in 
James  it  is  advanced  merely  as  a  motive  for  "  patience."  Jas. 
1  ;  2  has  nothing  to  recommend  its  priority  in  this  context.  On  the 
other  hand  I  Pt.  1  ;  6  is  the  continuation  of  a  line  of  thought  begun 
in  the  preceding  verses,  i.  e.,  (3)  God  has  begotten  the  believers 
to  a  lively  hope  (4)  of  an  inheritance  reserved  for  those  (5)  who  are 
kept  through  faith  unto  salvation,  (6)  in  which  thought  they  may 
find  comfort  in  the  present  persecutions  (7)  which  will  turn  out  to 
their  good  in  the  approaching  parousia. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  considerations  the  position  of  Mayor 
and  Monnier  seems  untenable.  The  probabilities  are  in  favor  of 
the  dependence  of  James  on  I  Peter,  at  this  point. 

(2)  I  Pt.   1 ;  23  Jas.  1 ;  18 

avaYSYsvvqjivoi  .  .  .  Bix  Aoyou  ^oukcib-iic,    ax£xur,o-£v    r\[}.oLq    Aoyw 

oCkrib-doLc 

The  "  birth  "  here  is  accomplished  "  by  the  word  of  God,"  or 
"  of  truth."  Mayor  thinks  that ;  "  I  Peter  expanded  the  simpler 
thought  of  James  "  (p.  xcvi),  to  which  Monnier  adds  :  "  d'une 
fagon  oratorie"  (p.  269).  Yet  the  avaYsysvvYjpivot  of  1  ;  23  refers 
back  to  the  avaYsvvr^Tac  of  1  ;  3  which  shows  close  sequence  of 
thought.  Some  have  felt  a  difficulty  here  in  finding  a  logical 
connection  of  Jas.  i  ;  18  to  its  context.  (See  note  on  Ex.  11.) 
'Atcoxusw  is  peculiar  to  James,  being  found  only  in  1  ;  15,  18,  while 
avaY£vvaco  occurs  only  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  3,  23.  The  closeness  of  thought 
and  phraseology  make  dependence  probable.  The  priorit}'  seems 
also  to  belong  to  I  Peter. 


510 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23,  24  Jas.  1 ;  10,  11 

7ua(7a  Bo^a  auT5](;,    w?  avS-o?  )(6p-      avsrsiT.ev     yap    6    Yi}aO(;  .  ,  .  xal 
Tou*    s^YipavQ'Y)    6    yo^xoc,    xai    to      s^Yjpavsv  tov  xop^ov  xai  to  av8-o? 

avQ-O?  £C£7l£(7£V,   TO   Bs   pYi[J.a   XUpiOU         aUTOti    £^£7i;£0-£V 

[jivei 

Professor  Bacon  thinks  that  ;  "the  thought  here  is  reproduced 
from  I  Peter."  He  also  maintains  that  James  is  the  borrower  in 
Ex.  2.  (Com.  on  Gal.  p.  8  n.)  The  language  of  James  shows  a  close 
relation  to  Ps.  90  ;  6,  103  ;  15,  Job  14  ;  2  and  Isa.  40  ;  6-8,  but 
it  is  more  closely  related  to  the  last.  Dependence  here  is  made  very 
probable  by  the  next  parallel. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2  ;  1  Jas.  1  ;  21 

a7Co9'£[j.£vo!,  oSv  Tuaaav   xaxiav  xai  ^ib     axoO-E^Evoi    Tzotaocv     puTcapiav 

'K.y.^'zv.    'boAO'^    xai     UTCOxpiTiv    xai  xoi  x£picrG'£tav  xaxia^  £v  xpauTVjTi 

(pS-ovouc    xai    Tzdaccc,    xaTala^.tac,  B£'^ao"D'£    tov    £[j.cp!jTOv    loyov    tov 

6)C    apTiY^vvTjTT,    pp£OV]    TO    Xoyi-  Buva[j.£vov  crwaai  toci;  ^"J/a^.  Cf .  3 ; 

xov  .  .  .  yaXcc  smTcoQ-YjcraTE    iva  iv  14,  17  and  4  ;  11. 
a^Tw  a!irr]0-rjT£    £ic  (TojTrjpiav   (re- 
sumes 1  ;   13).    Cf.  3  ;  21  aapxoc 

The  identical  use  of  the  introductory  participles  is  striking.  The 
wording  and  general  plan  are  also  very  similar.  That  I  Pt.  2  ;  1  is 
preceded  by  a  possible  reference  to  James  is  significant,  as  well  as 
the  fact  that  2  ;  2  finds  a  parallel  in  the  "  new  born  babes  "  to  the 
"new  birth  "  of  Jas.  1  ;  18,  which  is  in  a  close  context.  Monnier 
compares  the  "  Word  of  Truth  "  which  saves  our  souls  (Jas.  1  ;  21) 
to  "  le  lait  Aoyixov  par  lequel  on  grandit  en  vue  du  salut."  I  Pt. 
2  ;  2  (Com.  p.  269).  I  Pt.  2  ;  1  is  an  exhortation  based  upon  1  ; 
23a.  If  Jas.  1  ;  21  is  in  any  way  connected  with  the  preceding 
context,  it  too  must  go  back  a  few  verses,  i.  e.  to  1  ;  18.  Obviously 
the  connection  is  better  in  I  Peter.  That  this  similar  exhortation 
follows  three  verses  below  the  common  reference  to  the  "  new  birth," 
makes  a  strong  case  for  dependence.  I  Peter  also  employs  the 
"  Word  "    in  2  ;  2,   which  James  used  in  the  foregoing  connection. 


(5)  I  pt.  4 ;  8  Prov.  10 ;  12  Jas.  5 ;  12,  20 

xpo    7:avTtov    ty]v    £i?    LXXxavTa^Toy^lJ-YjcpO^o-    xpo  TuavTcov  [xri  6[}y6- 
zauxoiic,  ayaTC'/iv  £xt£-    v£txoLivTai;xaX'J7:T£t.  Heb.    £T£  (20)  yivo')G'/v£T£  oti 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  511 

xaX!j7vT£t7:Xrj9"0?a[xap-  }/>/  .  .  .  xoO^j'hzi  7:Ar,- 

Monnier  thinks  that  the  thought  of  James  is  the  more  primitive, 
and  that  the  citation  in  I  Peter  is  of  a  homiletical  character  (Com. 
p.  270—271).  Others  take  it  to  be  a  "  proverbial  expression  not 
appropriately  employed  by  James."  (Cf.  Cone's  Com.  p.  295.)  Mayor 
says  :  "  James  makes  use  of  a  familiar  phrase  without  regard  to 
the  bearing  of  the  context,  applying  it  to  the  conversion  of  the  erring, 
while  St.  Peter  keeps  the  original  application "  (Com.  p.  xcix). 
With  this  we  agree,  but  on  this  basis,  we  are  inclined,  with  Bigg 
(Com.  p.  173),  to  turn  Mayor's  argument  against  himself  and  infer 
the  priority  of  I  Peter.  If  our  author  "  keeps  the  original  appU- 
cation,"  James  cannot  have  influenced  him  to  any  appreciable  extent. 
Bigg  gives  the  following  summary  of  the  argument  :  "  If  there  is 
any  connection  here  between  St.  James  and  St.  Peter,  it  is  clear  that 
the  former  is  the  borrower,  for  the  connection  of  his  phrase  with 
verse  of  Proverbs  can  only  be  made  clear  by  taking  the  phrase  of 
the  latter  as  a  help.  If.  St.  Peter  had  not  first  written  aYocTTTj 
xaXuxTst.  zfkr^b'O^  a[j.apTtwv,  St.  James  never  could  have  said  that  he 
who  converteth  a  sinner  xaX'J'jts!,  ■Klrib-oc,  ajj.ocp-iwv. "  (For  more 
complete  discussion  see  Mayor  p.  170  f.,  and  Bigg  p.  173.)  From 
the  above  parallels  it  is  obvious  that  these  N.  T.  authors  do  not 
foUow  either  the  LXX  or  the  original  Hebrew  as  w^e  now  know  them. 
The  verbal  agreement,  therefore,  is  best  explained  on  the  basis  of 
literary  dependence,  and  reasons  have  not  been  wanting  to  give  to 
I  Peter  the  priority. 

(6)  ,    I  Pt.  5 ;  4  Jas.  1 ;  12 

(7j  I  Pt.  5;  5  Jas.  4;  6 

6  Bso?  UTcsprjcpavoi;  av-tTaTTs-at,      6   Hsoc  'JTrsp'/jcpavotc  avTi-ocTToTai, 
-axsivoTc  Bs  BiBojci  /aptv  TaxstvoT?  Bs  Tiihoiai  /apiv 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  6  Jas.  4 ;  10 

-az£ivo')9TjT£  o3v  uizo  -zry  xpa-ratav  Ta7:£!,vo)0T,':£    svtoziov    toj    /.uoiou, 

/£Tpa  TOL)  Heoij,    I'va    'j[J.6tc  'j'i/coTfj  xai   •j'l»o')'j£i   'jixac 
£v  xaipw 


512  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  8  Jas.  4 ;  7  b 

9)     &    aVTl(7TYlTE   (TirepSOl     T^    XtO-'irSI,        'fs-OCl    deep'     U[J.O)V 

Dependence  is  indisputable  in  parallels  6—9.  The  phrasing  and 
general  structure  are  remarkably  alike.  The  sequence  cannot  well 
be  considered  accidental.  Following  the  quotation  in  both  cases 
is  the  exhortation  to  submission  to  God  with  the  view  of  exaltation, 
which  will  follow  after  resisting  the  devil.  Ex.  9.  The  evidence 
of  Ex.  20  should  also  be  considered  here.  These  quotations  are 
too  constant  and  too  close  to  permit  a  doubt  of  dependence. 

The  importance  of  these  parallels  justifies  us  in  quoting  some- 
what at  length  from  Bigg  (p.  191)  where  the  priority  of  our  Epistle 
is  defended  in  a  convincing  way.  "  Reasons  why  we  should  assign 
the  priority  to  I  Peter  :  (1)  in  James  the  mention  of  humility  is 
sudden  and  unexpected  ;  (2)  though  he  gives  the  quotation  from 
Prov.  3  ;  34  in  the  same  shape  as  I  Peter,  he  writes,  in  ver.  10, 
TaTisivojO'YiTS  hoiTZioy  -zoo  Kupioo,  as  if  he  were  aware  that  6  ©so?  was 
not  quite  correct :  we  may  infer  perhaps  that  he  had  somewhere  seen 
the  quotation  in  its  altered  shape  ;  (3)  the  mention  of  the  devil  in 
I  Peter  is  not  only  more  natural  but  more  original ;  (4)  in  ver.  8, 
St.  James  has  ayvio-aTo  Ta;  xapBias.  which  may  be  suggested  by 
-zot-i;  'j»u/a?  'j[j.o)v  YiYvi/.ots;  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  22:  if  this  is  so,  St.  James  is 
combining  different  parts  of  the  Petrine  Epistle.  " 


c 

(10)  1   Pt.  1;  1  Jas.  1;  1 

sx)v£)CToT;   7:ap£XiSrjjj.oic   BiaT-opac      xoa^    BcoBs/.a    o'j'koCic,   'zoac,   sv    ty, 

This  leads  one  to  infer  literary  dependence.  Our  Epistle  addresses 
people  of  a  definite  location  while  James  refers  to  the  Diaspora 
in  general.  Mayor  argues  that  the  definiteness  of  I  Peter  is  an 
unconscious  enlargement  of  the  general  address  of  Jas.  1  ;  1,  but 
others  see  in  it  an  evidence  of  originalit}'.  TaT;  BcoBsxa  oolrxXc,  cannot 
be  very  early  if  it  refers  to  the  children  of  Abraham  by  faith,  rather 
than  by  birth,  which  the  body  of  the  Epistle  requires.  Many 
scholars  believe  that  James  bears  a  literary  relation  to  Romans.  If 
this  were  not  so  the  SiacTTCOpa  might  be  understood  to  refer  to  the 
Jews  as  such — assuming  an  early  date — but  if  James  depends  upon 
Romans  the  Bta(77;opa  must  refer  to  the  faithful  regardless  of  race. 
That  the  author  had  the  latter  class  in  mind  is  evident  from  the  con- 


First  Epistle  oj  Peter.  513 

text.  Cf.  ver.  18.  The  distorting  effect  that  a  theory  of  date  may 
have  an  interpretation  is  ilhistrated  by  Mayor,  not  only  when  he 
makes  "  James"  address  "the  Jews  of  the  Eastern  Dispersion,"  but 
also  when  he  says  ;  "  St.  Peter  addresses  the  Jews  of  Asia  Minor". 
(Com.  on  Jas.  p.  xcvi.) 

(11)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Jas.  1  ;  18 

The  reference  to  the  "  new  birth  "  comes  in  more  naturally  in 
I  Peter  than  in  James.  It  is  difficult  to  see  any  connection  with 
the  context  in  the  latter,  unless  it  be  preparatory  to  the  following 
exhortation.  (Cf.  Cone  p.  277.)  Since  there  is  nothing  in  the 
preceding  context  to  suggest  it,  the  probabilities  are  that  the  bor- 
rowing is  on  the  part  of  James. 

(12)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Jas.  1 ;  27,  2 ;  5 

'A[j.tavTO?  occurs  in  the  N.T.  only  here  and  in  Heb.  7 ;  26 ;  and  13  ;  4. 
Dependence  here  is  made  probable  by  the  possible  points  of  contact 
in  the  immediate  context  of  James.  Cf.  parallels  12,  13,  14,  17, 
19,  24  and  30. 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  12  Jas.  1 ;  25 

zlc  y.  £7ut0-u[i,o0(7iv  ayyeT^oi  7:apa-  6  Ss  ~apax'j'|»a;  si;  voij.ov  tsXsiov 
xu'j»ai  Tov  ~'7\(;  £};£u8'£pia; 

Hapax'JTTTO)  is  a  rare  word  in  the  N.  T.,  being  found  elsewhere 
only  in  Lk.  24  ;  12  and  Jn.  20  ;  5,  11.  It  is  used  in  the  perceptual 
sense  in  the  latter  references,  whereas  it  is  employed  in  the  con- 
ceptual sense  in  the  above  parallel.  The  context  in  James  is  sug- 
gestive of  I  Peter.     Dependence  here  seems  quite  probable. 

(14)  I  Pt.  1 ;  17  Jas.  2 ;  1 

Tov  a7:pocr(o-o}vYip.7CTO)C  xpivovca  [j.y,  £v  7:po(7(o7:oAY/|iiaic  .  .  . 

npOTcoTTOAr/liia  is  found  also  in  Rom.  2  ;  11,  3  ;  25,  6  ;  9,  and  may 
suggest  dependence  of  James  upon  Paul.  The  verbal  form  appears 
only  in  Jas.  2  ;  9.  npoTWTCoT.YiTUTYi;  occurs  in  "  Peter's  speech  "  in 
Acts  10  ;  34.  "A"  privative  is  employed  with  this  word  only  by  our 
author.  It  appears  then  that  Paul  is  the  source  for  I  Petel".  The 
usage  in  I  Peter  is  more  in  favor  of  its   priority  than  in  James. 


514  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

I  Peter  employs  it  in  a  chain  of  thought  whereas  James  uses  it, 
as  if  suggested  by  another,  to  introduce  an  exhortation  quite  foreigen 
to  the  previous  context.  This  parallel  is  made  more  significant 
by  Exs.  12,  24  and  30. 

(15)  I  Pt.  2 ;   11  Jas.  4 ;  1 

zapaxalw  .  .  .  aziyza^cci  twv  Tap-  t^oO-sv  7l67v£1j-oi'  .  .  .  oux  svTsOO-ev 
xixwv  STCiQ'tjiJ-wov    odrivzc,    cr-pccTSU-      Ix  -oJv  TjBovwv  'j[j.cov  tcov  cr-pa'su- 

Obviously  these  passages  are  closely  related.  I  Peter  depends 
very  probably  upon  Paul  (cf.  Rom.  5  ;  17,  Gal.  5  ;  17,  etc.),  rather 
than  upon  James,  inasmuch  as  the  influence  of  Romans  is  apparent 
all  through  this  section.  The  verse  contains  nothing  that  cannot 
be  duplicated  in  the  Pauline  Literature.  Jas.  4  ;  lb  agrees  with 
I  Pt.  2  ;  11  in  making  the  warfare  internal  in  accordance  with  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  "  aapi  against  the  ruvs'jjj.a."  But  the  preceding  and 
succeeding  contexts  lead  one  to  think  "James"  alludes  to  social 
disturbances.  If  so  iji}>£'7i,v  should  refer  to  "persons",  but  this  is 
wresting  the  word  out  of  its  most  obvious  meaning.  The  phrase 
4  ;  1  b,  therefore,  seems  to  be  borrowed. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Jas.  3 ;  13 

^A.<x'kr^'/  hy.  ...  ex  twv  xaXwv  spycov      (pYjc  Ta   spya    ocutoD    sv    7:pa^JTY]Tt. 

Cf.  3  ;  2  TTjV  ev  cp6|3o)  ayvviv  ava- 
ffTpocpYjv,  16,  TY]v  ayaO'TjV  svXpio-ToJ 

The  sequence  of  thought  is  better  in  I  Peter.  A  difficulty  is 
felt  in  the  attempt  to  bring  the  verse  in  James  into  connection 
with  the  idea  implied  in  the  analogies  of  the  foundation,  etc.  (Cf. 
Cone's  Com.  p.  286.)  This  author  says  :  "  the  connection,  if  any, 
is  strained."  The  writer  begins  here  a  new  theme  of  the  "  Meekness 
of  Wisdom,"  whereas  in  I  Peter  the  verse  is  a  continuation  of  the 
thought  begun  in  the  foregoing  context.  If  I  Peter  shows  depen- 
dence at  this  point  it  is  upon  Paul.     Cf.  ver.  11. 

(17)  I  Pt.  2  ;  15  Jas.  1 ;  25,  2 ;  12 

wc    zkzubt^oi  .  .  .  &lX    6)c    0203      v6[j.o?  ITvSuB^spiac  1  ;  1   Stoo  BoU- 
BoOloi  Ao? 

This  is  a  close  parallel  on  the  Pauline  basis.  Cf.  Gal.  2  ;  4,  5  ;  1, 
13,  etc.     We  have  seen  in  another  connection  that  this  section  of 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  515 

I  Peter  depends  upon  Romans,  hence,  if  there  is  dependence  here 
between  James  and  I  Peter  it  must  be  on  the  part  of  the  former. 
This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  Exs.  4,  6  and  20. 

(18)  I  Pt.  2;  20,  21  Jas.  5;  10,  11 

•j7:o[j.£V£Tt£,  -oZ-o  /apic  -a^sy.  Hew*  ■a'xI  -r^c  [J.ax^ooO'yij.iar  to'j?  v'^'fV 

zlc  zoZ-zo  Y^cp  £x7.y;0tj-:£,    6t'-   xai  t7.c  .  .  .  iSo'j     [J.axapCto[j.sv     tou; 

XpicTTOc   £7:a8'2v  -jxlp    'jjj.oiv,    'jjj.Tv  'j-oixstvav-ac.     Cf.  1  ;  12. 
•j7coli[X7:av(ov  'jTroYpa'j.jxov 

Patient  endurance  in  suffering  is  at  a  premium  in  both  cases, 
though  the}^  appeal  to  different  examples.  The  appeal  of  James 
to  the  O.  T.  worthies  does  not  show  the  Christian  trait  as  distincth' 
as  I  Peter  in  its  appeal  to  Christ,  nor  is  it  in  accord  with  Jas.  1  ;  1. 
'AyaD-OTwOtoiiv-s;  of  Peter  is  in  accord  with  "James'  polemic" 
against  the  misunderstanding  either  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  "  Justifi- 
cation by  Faith,"  or  of  Hebrews  11. 

(19)  I  Pt    3 ;  10  Jas.  1 ;  26 

Here  is  a  close  parallel  in  thought.  I  Peter  probably  quoted 
3  ;  9  a  from  Pro  v.  17  ;  13  at  Paul's  suggestion.  Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  14, 
17,  I  Thes.  5  ;  15.  On  the  basis  of  Mayor's  criterion,  the  brevitj^ 
of  James  here  indicates  its  priority,  but  against  this  is  Jas.  3,  which 
is  more  explicable  as  a  discourse  preached  on  the  text  of  I  Peter 
against  the  growing  zeal  to  become  teachers.     Cf.  I  Cor.  14  ;  16—22. 

(20)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Jas.  5 ;  9 

x&  £TOt[xo)?  xpivovTi  6  xptTTji;  7:p6    twv    O"jp('oy  scrrrjXEv 

The  thought  is  too  common  during  the  early  period  to  be  decisive, 
yet  the  general  trend  of  the  contexts  is  quite  alike  in  both  cases. 

(21)  I  Pt.  4;  7  Jas.  5;  8 

TtdcvTcov  ■zb  ziXoc  r^yyv/.v/-  ctoopo-  Trrjp^x"  irac  xapBioc?  oij.(ov  oti 
Yf^fj<xzz  oOv  Yj  ^apoucria    ~oZ   KupCou    TjYY'-''-^'''- 

V.  3  £v  £(7/a-ai?  -^[XEpat? 
This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  Exs.  20  and  22. 

(22)  I  Pt.  5;  10  Jas.  5;  8 

~6c,  .  .  .  (j-'fi^iizi  '£aT£  Tar  xapBicc? 

Note  the  sequence  in  parallels  20—22. 


516  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

d 

(23)  I  Pt.  1  ;  1  Jas.  1  ;  1 

Xpt(7~on  Bo5}.o? 

On  the  supposition  that  the  author  of  "  James  "  was  an  apostle 
it  is  significant  to  note  that  BouXo?  is  used  instead  of  dcTcocrTolo?. 
AoSTvOc  Paul  uses,  in  Phil.  1  ;  1,  for  an  apostles  associate.  In  the 
salutations  of  five  of  Paul's  epistles  he  alludes  to  himself  as  an 
cazoa^oXoc,,  also  in  two  of  the  Pastoral  epistles.  Only  Titus  and 
Romans  employ  B&uXo?  in  this  connection,  which  may  be  used  as  a 
datum  for  the  dependence  of  James  upon  Romans.  Or  on  the 
supposition  that  the  author  is  the  Lord's  brother  one  would  expect 
to  find  dcBsV^oc.     Osoij  xat  KupioD  are  important  additions. 

(24)  I  Pt.  1;  19  Jas.  1;  27,  5;  7 

Ttpo)    at[j.a-i    Coc,    dcjj.vo'j    ap.to[j.o'j      unizikov    lauTov    Tr^pcTv    axo    too 
xca  oc(j7:i7.o'j  x6cr[j.0!j.     5  ;  7  ^t[j.iov  y-a^r/jv 

(25)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  Jas.  4 ;  8 

(26)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  Jas.  1 ;  18 

£V  TTi  i)%<XY.or\  TYJi;  alr^b-doc^  loyo)  a)vYi8-stai;  • 

When  taken  separately  these  three  parallels  need  not  detain  us. 

(27)  I  Pt.  2 ;  18,  3 ;  1  Jas.  4 ;  7 
6xoTa(7T6[j.£vo!,  ToTc  BsT'OTair,  O-o-      'jr.oz'xyr-t  Toi  Bsoi 

cpopeTcrS-s.     2  ;  17. 

See  Ex.  8  for  a  closer  parallel. 

(28)  I  Pt.  2  ;  25  Jas.  5 ;  19 
7c>>avw[j.£voi  sTvSfTTptx'iirjTi                       lav   ti;  Iv    6[jIv  7i>.avY]!j-?|  .  .  .  xai 


£7:!,'7'7p£CpY]    Ti;    aUTOV 


Suggestive  but  not  conclusive. 


(29)  I  Pt.  3;  15  Jas.  1;  21 

[j.£Ta  TcpaoTYj'^oi;.     Cf.  v.  4.  Iv  TrpauTr^Ti 

Probably  accidental. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  517 

(30)  I  Pt.  4;  14  Jas.  2;  1 

-zh   'xr^c   ^otr^^    xai    to    zoZ   StoZ      rr^v    Tyin-iv    '1y]0'0'j    Xpi(j~oZ    ■zoo 

This  furnishes  no  argument  either  for  or  against  dependence. 

(31)  I  Pt.  4 ;   16  Jas.  2 ;  7 

zl    6k    /pio-Ttavoc    (x(X(7/£i)    ...      TO  xa7.6v  ovotj.a  to  s7ri,xl"r]D'£v  s'^' 
BoSa^sToj  Tov  Bsov  Iv  Toi  ovop.aT!,      'j(j.a? 

TOUTO) 

While  this  is  suggestive  the  background  is  different. 

Conclusion 

J.  P.  Mayor  says  :  "  I  think  no  unprejudiced  reader  can  doubt 
the  resemblances  between  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  and  the  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter.  The  recurrence  in  them  of  the  same  words  and  phrases 
and  their  common  quotations  from  the  0.  T.  are  such  as  to  prove 
conclusively  that  the  one  borrowed  from  the  other.  Nor  can  there 
be  much  doubt  as  to  which  of  the  two  was  the  borrower  if  we  ob- 
serve how  in  ahnost  every  case,  the  common  thought  finds  fuller 
expression  in  St.  Peter."  (Epis.  of  St.  Jas.  p.  xcv.)  So  Zahn 
says  :  "  it  is  plain  that  the  author  of  I  Peter  was  well  acquainted 
with  James  and  had  read  the  letter  reflectively."  (Int.  I,  p.  134.) 
Salmon  thinks  that  "  the  proofs  of  the  use  by  Peter  of  the  Epistle 
of  James  are  decisive."  (Int.  p.  556.)  Falconer  maintains  that 
"  there  is  a  close  relation  between  the  Epistles,  but  the  order  of 
priority  can  be  determined  only  on  the  basis  of  the  date  of  James." 
(H.  B.  D.  p.  716.) 

That  these  Epistles  are  in  some  way  directly  related,  critics  of 
all  schools  are  agreed,  but  as  to  the  order  of  priority  they  differ 
widely.  Luther  long  ago  contended  for  the  priority  of  I  Peter. 
He  has  been  followed  by  an  illustrious  line  of  scholars,  e.  g.  W 
Bruckner  (S.  35),  Hausrath  (IV,  S.  253),  Hilgenfeld  (S.  638),  Holtz- 
mann  (Einl.  S.  315,  336),  von  Soden  (H.C.,  III  2  ;  2,  S.  2  f.,  110). 
Pfleiderer  (S.  417,  424,  427),  Knopf  (N.  Z.  S.  34),  Bacon  (Int.  p.  160), 
Bigg  (p.  23),  Cone  (E.  B.,  Com.  p.  269). 

Jiilicher  contends  that  :  "  James  has  considerable  literature 
behind  it  not  only  0.  T.  Apocrypha,  but  Christian  writings  also  : 
Paul,  Hebrews,  I  Peter  and  the  Gospels.  The  points  of  resem- 
blance, too,  between  it  and  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement  are  so  man}^ 
and  so  striking  that  it  is  impossible  to  explain  them  satisfactorily 


518  Or  a  Deliner  Foster, 

except  by  supposing  our  author  to  have  been  acquainted  with  that 
Epistle.  James  shares  its  fundamental  ideas  with  those  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  and  even  in  expression  it  often  approaches 
the  latter  remarkably  closely."     (Int.  p.  224.) 

Were  we  to  grant  the  truth  of  Mayor's  assertion — which  is  not 
supported  by  the  facts — that  "  the  common  thought  finds  fuller 
expression  in  I  Peter,"  it  would  still  afford  no  conclusive  argument 
for  the  priority  of  James.  Cf.  the  relation  of  I  Peter  to  Ephesians 
and  Romans.  What  is  much  more  conclusive  is  the  naturalness 
with  which  the  citations  in  question  occur  in  their  respective  contexts. 
It  has  been  noted  at  various  points  in  the  above  study  that  the 
contextual  connection  is  much  better  in  I  Peter  and  not  unfrequently 
does  it  appear  that  the  thought  of  James  has  been  introduced  at 
the  suggestion  of  another.  The  priority  of  our  Epistle  seems  evident 
in  no  less  than  half  of  the  parallels,  e.  g.  1—9,  11,  14—17,  19.  Appa- 
rently therefore  those  are  correct  who  claim  James  depends  directly 
upon  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


JUDE 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  1,  5  Jude  1 

STcTvS/.ToT?  .   .   .  £v   aYiaajxto  :z^z^-      toT?  Iv  Bsw  Tiaxpi  YiYa;cY][j.£voi?  .  .  . 
[xoccoc    5    (TSTTjpTjijivYjv)    cppo'jfo'j-      TSTTjprj^j.svoi?  xXyjtoTi; 
[j.£vo'Jc  Bia  rAiyztoic  .  .  . 

The  occurence  of  the  doctrines  of  the  believers'  election,  sancti- 
fication  and  security  in  such  close  contextual  connection  makes 
dependence  seem  probable  at  the  very  outset. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  Jude  2 

•/apic  6[j.Tv   xal   oiprjVr,   TzAY^S-jvO'Sir,      zlzoc,   6[j.Tv   y.cd   sipr^vr,  xai   'X'^trrrti 

Jude  reproduces  the  phraseology  of  our  Epistle  more  perfectly  at 
this  point  than  any  other  N.  T.  writing,  excepting  II  Pt.  1  ;  2,  which 
was  borrowed  either  from  Jude  or  from  I  Peter.  II  Peter  has  the 
exact  form  found  in  I  Peter,  but  it  is  a  recasting  of  Jude  by  a  student 
of  I  Peter,  hence  the  priority  must  be  given  to  our  Epistle.  The 
direct  sequence  of  this  close  parallel  with  the  one  preceding  it  leads 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  519 

us  to  infer  dependence.  Yet  the  superscriptions  Jas.  1  ;  1  and  Jude 
1—2  are  peculiarly  open  to  the  suspicion  of  adjustment  and  as- 
similation in  the  process  of  formation  of  the  canon. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  8  Jude  4 

.   .   .    (XTTsiG'otiv'U'sc*   SIC   6  xal  Itz-      ol  7:a}.at,  xpoysYpaij-ijivot  zlc  Toti'o 

This  parallel  affords  no  argument  for  dependence.  Cf.  Rom.  9  ; 
21,  22,  I  Thes.  5  ;  9,  Prov.  16  ;  4,  Jer.  18 ;  6  etc. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  19  Jude  6 

■ZOIC  sv  ou7.ax^  TwVSUij.aTiv  ^fy^xoX^  aVBioi?  bizb  Zooov  -zt'c^zc/.z^* 

There  is  here  no  obvious  connection. 

The  evidence  afforded  by  the  above  possible  points  of  contact 
is  not  such  as  to  warrant  the  claim  that  one  author  knew  the  work 
of  the  other. 

REVELATION 
C 

c 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  19  Eev.  1 ;  5 

s};tjTpt60'YjT£  .  .  .  Tiij.wo  rA\xy.~i  wc  X'JTav-i  v][J.a^  sz  twv  aixapTtoiv 
a|j.vo!J  a[j.t6[j.0!j  xat,  (xo-tciXou  Xpi<j-  yjjxwv  Iv  tw  oLi[i.ix'zi  aOToD.  5  ;  6 
TTOU.  1  ;  2  pavricTjj-ov  a?[j.aT05  apviov  eg-ttjXo^  wr  £'7(p3CY[jivov 
'l7](T0u  XpiCToO  5  ;  9  r^YopaG-a?  Toi  (-)o(o  iv  -oi  ai- 

[i.y.-zi  (jOo 

The  purchase  was  made  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb.  (Cf.  Acts 
20  ;  28,  I  Cor.  6  ;  20,  Heb.  9  ;  14.)  The  words  used  for  "  lamb  " 
and  for  "  purchase  "  are  different,  yet  the  ideas  are  the  same.  It 
can  hardly  be  accidental  that  this  reference  to  "  redemption  "  or 
"  washing  from  sin  "  is  contextual^  connected  with  parallels  2 
and  3. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Rev.  1 ;  6 

6p.sT?  Ss  yivot;  iyJ.tY-ov,  [ixrr-  s-oirjTsv  r^[J.ot^  '^ccGiXzix^ ,  tepeic  Toi 
ikeiov  ispaT:£U[j.a,  IDvoc  aY^ov,  lao?  (-)zo>.  5  ;  10  tw  0£w  v][xwv  |3a(7i- 
£1?  x£pi7roiYi<jiv  7.oT?  xai  tspsT? 

Both  authors  may  be  following  the  original  independently  (i.  e. 
Exod.  19  ;  6),  yet  the  context  in  Revelation  makes  this  very  im- 
probable. 


520  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Rev.  1 ;  6 

&  sG'Tiv  Y]  BoHa  xai  to  xpairo?  sii;  auxw  T;  ^6%cc  xai  to  xpocTo;  si(; 
Totjc;  aioivai;  twv  aicovcov.  dcp.yiv.  touc  aiwvac  twv  auovcov.  ajji^qv. 
Cf.  5  ;    11.  Cf.  5  ;  13. 

"  The  collocation  of  words  is  rightly  considered  by  Hoffmann,  von 
Soden  (and  Swete)  to  show  that  the  doxology  is  addressed  to  Christ, 
as  are  those  in  II  Tim.  4  ;  18,  II  Pt.  3  ;  18,  Apoc.  1  ;  6."  (Bigg 
p.  176.)  But  in  no  other  instance  is  there  verbal  agreement  through- 
out. The  textual  sequence  and  very  similar  phraseology  in  these 
three  parallels  make  a  strong  argument  for  dependence, 

c— <i 

(4)  I  Pt.  1  ;  20  Rev.  13 ;  8 

Trpoeyvcoij-svou  [j.sv  xpo  y.o!.':a^olf^<;  tou  apviou  scrcpaYJ^svou  x~b  xaTa- 
xoG-[j.oO  ^01%^  xoo-pu 

If  uTzb  •/.ocxa.^oXr^c,  y.6g\koo  limits  IcrcpayfJiEvov,  as  one  would  naturally 
understand  it,  we  have  here  a  closer  parallel  than  is  to  be  found 
elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  On  the  other  hand,  if,  as  in  17  ;  8,  it 
connects  with  -^iypocizzM,  the  thought  is  not  the  same.  Cf.  Swete's 
"Apoc.  of  St.  John,"  p.  164.  As  the  text  of  Rev.  13;  8  stands 
it  really  demands  a  direct  connection  between  0.1:0  xaTa[io>.% 
x6(7[jiou  and  l^'^ayfJ-svov.  Bigg  so  interprets  it.  (Com.  p.  120.) 
"  Qui  occisus  est  ab  origine  mundi,"  of  the  Textum  Vaticanum,  and 

J  X)\\?     oi^-uiiiL    ^     •■  I  flg . T  I     001   jv^DJJ    '     of    the    Peshito, 

can  only  be  taken  as  our  revisers  of  1881  rendered  the  Greek  text. 
This  parallel,  therefore,  is  very  significant,  especially  when  taken 
in  connection  with  Ex.  1. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  25  Rev.  7  ;  17 

^T£   yap   oic,  xp6[3aTa  xXavcojJxvoi      to  apviov  to  ava  ixsaov  ~o\)  O-povou 
oiX}\      £7U£(7TpacpTjT£     vOv     llZl     TOV       TiOtjj.avsT  ailTOU?  .  .  . 
::oi[jiva  .  .  . 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  our  author  uses  the  word  referring 
to  Christ,  which  is  common  with  later  authors.  Cf.  Jn.  10  ;  2,  11, 
12,  14,  16,  Heb.  13  ;  20,  etc.     See  John  Exs.  11-12. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Rev.  12 ;  12 

OTi  6  avTiBtxo?  61J.WV  Bta|3o}vOC,  ok  oti  xaTsp-/]  6  Bia[3oXo?  zpbc,  b\xotq 
T^scov   wpuo^svoc,   ;:£pt7:aT£T  trjTwv      £)ro)v  D-ufj-ov  [XEyav,  siSw?  oti  oT^Cyov 

Ttva  xaTaTCrfi  xaipov  £/£i. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  521 

These  passage  show  a  common  belief  in  the  devil's  activity  during 
the  fiery  persecution  then  waging.  Rome  appears  to  be  the  base 
of  his  operations  in  the  world  and  apart  from  there  he  is  thought 
of  as  "  a  roaring  Hon  going  about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour." 
I  Pt.  1  ;  8.  These  references  therefore,  show  similar  conditions  to 
have  existed  when  the  books  were  written,  if,  indeed,  they  do  not 
show  dependence. 

d 

(7)  I  Pt.  1 ;  7  Rev.  3 ;  18 

Though  this  parallel  is  suggestive  it  is  not  conclusive.  It  only 
shows  that  the  two  books  have  a  common  background, 

(8)  I  Pt  2 ;  16  Eev.  1 ;  1 
BoDloi  ©sou                                           Bo'JXoic  auToO 

A  very  common  thought  in  the  N.  T. 

(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  10  Rev.  14 ;  5 

These  passages  suggest  dependence,  yet  they  may  be  drawn  from 
the  original  directly.     Cf.  Ps.  34  ;  13  and  32  ;  2. 

(10)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Rev.  1 ;  3 
TuavTwv  Bs  TO  t£7.o?  T^yyixs                 6  Y^^p  y-oci^oc  syyuc 

This  idea  is  very  common  in  the  N.  T. 

(11)  I  Pt.  5 ;  1  Rev.  1 ;  9 

xapaxa}i.w    6    (TO\k'izpzG^6xt^oc   xai  syw  'IcoavvY]^,  6  xat,  aBsXcpo?  6[JL5iv 

[xapTUi;    Twv    Tou  XptaTOij    zaO'Tj-  xai  guyxoivtovoc  sv  ty)  8>}^i(j;£i  .  .  . 

[xaTOJv  Bta  .  .  .  TYjv  [lapTuptav  'IyjctoO" 

This  similarity  is  probably  due  to  the  similar  conditions  out  of 
which  these  writings  were  produced. 

(12)  I  Pt.  5;  4  Rev.  2;  10 
TV]?  Bo^v]!;  CTscpavou                              axsfpavov  •ttji;  (^wyjc 

Though  suggestive,  dependence  here  is  very  doubtful. 


522  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

13)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  Rev.  14 ;  8 

^apuKivi  (^a^'jlcov.        Cf.    16 ;  19,    17;   5, 

18;  2,  10;  21. 
In  view  both  of  tradition  and  history,  we  need  not  consider  any 
interpretation  which  does  not  identify  (3a[3u}vaJv  with  Rome.  On 
this  basis,  which  is  the  only  tenable  view,  we  must  recognize  a  re- 
lation between  I  Peter  and  the  Apocalypse.  We  cannot  claim 
any  literary  relation,  but  that  the  circumstances  and  time  of  writing 
were  closely  related  seems  obvious.  Rome  was  already  drunk  with 
the  blood  of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus. 
Rev.  17  ;  6.  C.  A.  Scott  expresses  the  opinion  of  many  scholars 
when  he  makes  this  passage,  just  quoted,  presuppose  the  Neronian 
persecution.  (New  Cent.  Bib.  on  Rev.  p.  262.)  On  this  basis  the 
mystical  name  has  meaning,  but  to  place  it  before  the  Neronian 
persecution,  or  even  at  the  beginning,  as  the  "  traditional  view  " 
would  claim  for  I  Peter,  would  be  to  involve  us  in  an  insoluble 
mystery.  It  is  clear  from  our  Epistle  that  the  persecutions  had  not 
made  as  much  progress  in  Asia  Minor  as  they  had  in  Rome.  Cf. 
Rev.  17  ;  6  f .  The  persecutions  alluded  to  in  I  Peter,  were  a  "  new 
thing,"  whereas  in  Rome  they  were  of  some  duration.  It  would 
thus  appear  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  soon  after  I  Peter. 

The  more  obvious  points  of  contact  between  these  writings  (e.  g. 
Exs.  1—3)  can  hardly  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  on  the  basis 
of  a  common  background,  yet  the  evidence  is  not  such  as  to  make 
dependence  very  probable. 

I  JOHN 
B 

b— c 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  8  I  Jn.  4;  20 

6v    oux    iBovTSi;    ayaTTaTs,    £i$    6v      6v    sojpaxsv,     tov    Bsov     6v     ouy 
apTi    [J.Y]    opwvTsc   TTKJTS'JovTs?  .  .  .      soSpaxsv  00  Byvaxai  ayaxav 

Dependence  here  is  made  very  probable  by  the  additional  evi- 
dence of  John  Ex.  2. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  19  I  Jn.  1  ;  7 

£>>UTpa)Q'TjT£  (cpO-ocpToT;)  Ttjjio)  atjj.a-      -6    aljxa  'l7](7on   XpiTTOtj  .  .  .  xa- 
Ti  MC,  a^voij  a[j.a)[j-0'j  xai  arj-Kilou      b-ocpiZzi  ri[xdtz  <xizb  TzaTYjc  ajxapirta; 

XpiCTTOU 

The  thought  is  very  similar  as  well  as  the  phrasing.  Here  Jesus' 
blood  is  thought  of  as  "  cleansing  from  sin,"  whereas  in  Jn.  1  ;  29 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  523 

it  is  the  "  Lamb  of  God  who  bears  the  sin  of  the  world."  Our 
author  has  used  these  two  ideas  together,  if  indeed  they  may  be 
said  to  be  two  ideas.  "  Redemption  is  through  the  spotless  blood 
of  the  Lamb."  Dependence  here  seems  probable.  Cf.  also  John 
Ex.  3. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  a  I  Jn.  3 ;  3 

Tocc  '^^s/y.c  u[j.(ov  Vi'vixo"?  xai  t,x<;  .  .  .  ayvi^si  sa-jTov  /.autoc 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  b  I  Jn.  5 ;  2 

::6xpiTov,      sx     xaO-apac     xapSiac      Gsov  ayaTrto^ixsv,  xai    Tocr  £vto}.5C? 

Parallels  3  and  4  should  be  considered  together.  Our  Epistle 
teaches  that  purification  is  effected  by  obedience  to  truth  and  that  it 
issues  in  brotherly  love.  I  John  sets  forth  obedience  to  the  command- 
ments as  the  final  test  of  love  (I  Jn.  3—5).  The  mere  suggestion 
"  sv  T^  U7ZOY.or\  -lty]?  dlrib'zioir  "oil  Peter  is  treated  more  extensively 
in  I  John.  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  puts  the  teaching  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  himself.  Cf.  Jn.  14  ;  15.  21,  23,  15  ;  10,  12, 
14,  etc.  The  reference  to  "  brotherly  love  "  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  b  (2  ;  17, 
3  ;  8,  4  ;  8)  is  extensively  elaborated  in  I  John.  (Cf.  2  ;  9,  10,  3  ; 
10-20,  4  ;  7-21,  5  ;  1-3.)  Jesus  himself  teaches  it  in  John  13  ; 
34,  35.  All  this  seems  to  indicate  that  the  Johannine  literature 
presupposes  our  Epistle. 

(5)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23  I  Jn.  3 ;  9 

avay£y£vvY,[j.£vot  o'jx  £x  crTropa^  6  ysyswrjijivoc  sx  -zoZ  0£ou  aaap- 
cpQ-apT?;?  aWvOc  acpD-ap-rotj  xiocv    otj    izoisX  oti   <77C£p[j.a   a-jTou 

sv    aUTW     lJ.£V£t 

S7:opa?  and  ardpixix  are  very  significant  parallels  just  in  this 
connection.  Obviously  the  expression  "  born  of  God  "  means  the  same 
as  "born  again",  or  from  above  (avoiO'£v).  Apparently  I  John 
elaborates  the  idea  found  in  I  Peter.  (Cf.  I  Jn.  3  ;  9,  4  ;  7,  5  ;  1,  18.) 
This  doctrine  is  definitely  taught  by  Jesus  himself  in  John  3.  Note 
the  sequence  of  thought  in  Exs.  3—5.  It  is  also  significant  that  there 
are  other  probable  points  of  contact  with  I  Peter  in  this  context. 
Cf.  Exs.  7  and  8.  (For  relationship  of  Jas.  1  ;  18  see  note  on  John 
Ex.  6.) 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  35  January,  1913. 


524  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21  I  Jn.  2 ;  6 

Tva    sxaxo}^ouS>Yi<7Y]T£    ToTc    lyyzGVj      xaS-wi;    sxsTvo?    TispisTcaTYjas,     xol 

See  John  Ex.  15  for  a  closer  parallel  in  the  fore  part.  Yet  the 
::£pi7ca-r$Tv  of  I  John  is  more  in  accord  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  21b  than  is  John 
13  ;  15.    I  Peter  is  probably  the  basis  for  Jn.  13  ;  15  and  I  Jn.  2  ;  6. 

(7)  I  Pt.  2  ;  22  I  Jn.  3  ;  5  b 

6?  ajj.apTiav  o'jx.  szoltjTsv  a[xapTia  sv  a'jTw  oux  Icti 

Cf.  John  8  ;  46,  Ex.  7.  It  is  to  be  noted  again  that  this  doctrine 
is  taught  by  Jesus  himself  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  I  Jn.  3  ;  5  a 

6c  Toc;  a[j,apTia?  t^jxcov  auro?  avv;-      icpavepwS-Y],  iva  xkc,  a|j,apTia<;  i^[xwv 
vsyxsv    £v   Tw    Tcop-aTi    aoTO-j    £~i      apr,.     Cf.  2  ;  2,  4  ;  10. 

TO    CtJXoV 

I  Jn.  4  ;  10  has  D.aTp-o?  corresponding  to  llaa-fjptov  of  Rom.  3  ;  25. 
Rom.  5  ;  8,  10  expresses  in  abstract  form  what  is  given  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  18 
and  I  Jn.  3  ;  16.  I  Pt.  2  ;  24  thinks  of  Jesus  "  bearing  our  sins  in 
his  own  body,"  while  I  Jn.  3  ;  5  says  ;  "  he  bears  them  away,"  in 
accordance  with  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist.  Cf.  John  Exs. 
2  and  3. 

d 

(9)  I  Pt.  1  ;  24  I  Jn.  2 ;  17 

BioTt  zaaa  cap;    o>c   /opTO?,    xai  xai    6   x6(r[j.o?    TLapaysirat,    xai    y 

r.^a%  Boia  oi\rzr\c,   mc,  avO-Oi;   )(6p-  s-iO-ufj-ia  au-ou'  Bs   izoii^)'^   ^q  %•£- 

Tou  .  .  .  Bs  p^^a  Kupiou  [JLSVst  si?  Xr^jxa    TOii     ©eo'j    [jivst    ets;    tov 

Tov  aiwva  auova.     Cf.  1  ;  1,  3. 

There  is  probably  no  connection  here. 


(10)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  I  Jn.  2 ;  18 

7iavT(ov  -h  -zkoc  TjYyixsv  sT/arrj  wpa  IttC 

This  idea  is  too  common  to  trace  its  course  down  to  the  Johannine 
Literature. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  525 

II  JOHN 

D 

I  Pt.  4 ;  8  II  Jn.  5 

Tipo  TiavTfov  — f|V  Etc  sa'jTO'j;  aya-      I'va  aya'wij.ev  oCO.r^'kooq 

;ur,v  IxTsv?)  lyov-zc 

Dependence  cannot  be  argued  here,  unless  through  the  relation 
this  parallel  sustains  to  the  other  Johannine  Literature.  Cf.  Jn.  13  ; 
34,  15  ;  12,  I  Jn.  3  ;  23. 

in  JOHN 

D 

I  Pt.  3  ;   11  III  Jn.  11 

ixxlivGCTO)  Ss  a;:o  xaxoS  xat,  tioiyj-      [iy]  [jit[j.o!j  to  xaxov  aX}.a  to  ayaO ov, 
cocTco    ayaO'Ov,    ^rjTri(7aT(o    £ip-/ivr,v      6  ayaO'0::ot,cov  ,  ,  . 
xai  BuoSaTco   auTTjv.     ayaOoTTOisco 
2  ;  15,  20,   3  ;  6,  17. 

This  parallel  is  quite  suggestive,  yet  since  it  is  the  only  real  point 
of  contact  between  these  Epistles,  and  the  reference  in  I  Peter  is 
a  quotation  from  the  O.T.,  III  John  can  have  no  voice  in  determin- 
ing the  relation  the  Johannine  Literature  sustains  to  I  Peter, 


JOHN 
B 

b— c 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  3b  Jn.  8  •,  3 

avaysvvTjCra?  Y;[xac.     Cf.  1  ;  23.  ysvvrjO-?]  avwQ-ev     Cf.  3  ;  5 

The  idea  of  the  "  new  birth  "  is  found  in  the  Pauhne  writings. 
Cf.  I  Cor.  4  ;  15,  Gal.  4  ;  19,  6  ;  15,  Tit.  3  ;  5.  It  is  more  clearly 
set  forth  in  our  Epistle.  Cf.  1  ;  3,  23.  It  would  seem  that  the  author 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  took  up  the  idea  as  our  author  had  developed 
it  and  incorporated  it  into  a  narrative. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8,  9  Jn.  20 ;  29,  31 

6v    oux    iBovTE?    (xyaTcocTS,    dc    ov      o-t  swpaxac  [xs,  [0waa]  Tusmairsu- 
apTi   [j/f]    opoivTsr,    TTiTTc'JovTsc   (>£      xar  *    [xaxocptot   01   [xr^  iBovTSC,  xal 


526  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

uyaXkiotzz  X^^P^  aysxTva^YiTo)  xal  maxtbaixvzzq  .  .  .  h<x  TZKyzz'jovTZ^ 
B£Bo'£a[jivri,  xo[j.i^6|j.£voi  to  'viXoc,  'C,oiry  lyji^z  sv  tw  6v6[j.aTi  txozoZ. 
TTj?  mcTsw?  u[ji.a)v,  (jtoTY)piav  4"jpjv      Cf.  16  ;  16,  22. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  contain  this  thought  in  embryo.  Cf.  II  Cor. 
5  ;  7,  I  Cor.  13  ;  12,  Rom.  8  ;  23,  24.  This  contrast  of  "  faith  and 
sight,"  to  which  Paul  thus  refers,  I  Peter  appHes  to  the  Christians 
of  Asia  Minor  in  a  commendatory  fashion.  Great  joy  accompanies 
behef  in  the  unseen  one.  But  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  blessing  is 
because  (6ti)  "  they  have  not  seen  and  yet  believed."  Furthermore 
the  teaching  is  again  found  in  a  narrative.  That  there  is  a  connection 
here  is  made  very  probable  by  the  further  parallel  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  9  and 
Jn.  20  ;  31b.  Salvation  or  life  is  here  set  forth  as  the  end  of  faith, 
which  refers  back  to  the  preceding  parallel  verse  in  both  instances. 
Paul's  allusions  to  the  subject  are  of  a  general  and  somewhat  spe- 
culative character,  while  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  weaves 
it  into  a  narrative  in  a  most  concrete  fashion.  I  Peter  forms  a  con- 
nection which  bridges  the  chasm.  The  sequence  of  thought  and  the 
similar  phraseology  make  a  strong  argument  for  dependence. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18,  19  Jn.  1 ;  29 

zKwz^dyj-'ri-zz  .  .  .  tiij-uo  al'p.aTt,  wc  "IBs  6  ocjj.vo?  too  (■)£o^,  6  aipoiv  ty]v 
aij.vo^i  (ap.coij-ou  xai  ao-vitAou)  Xpicr-  a[j.apTtav  tou  y.6n\j.oo.  Cf.  1  ;  36. 
TOO.     Cf.  2  ;  24. 

Acts  8  ;  32  employs  a[j.v6?,  from  Isa.  53  ;  7,  otherwise  it  does  not 
occur  in  the  N.  T.  outside  this  parallel.  This  is  significant,  since  in 
all  three  instances  it  is  used  as  an  epithet  of  Christ.  Paul  nowhere 
speaks  of  the  "lamb"  per  se,  but  he  does  speak  of  "  Christ  our 
passover  "  (I  Cor.  5  ;  7),  which  imphes  what  our  author  explicitly 
states  in  1  ;  19.  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  improves  upon 
our  author  when  he  puts  1  ;  29  b  and  1  ;  36  b  into  the  mouth  of  John 
the  Baptist.  The  Petrine  development  of  Paul  is  again  found  in  the 
form  of  a  definite  narrative.  John  the  Baptist  is  made  to  enunciate 
the  fully  developed  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  in  Petrine 
terms.     (Cf.   Jn.  1  ;  29  b  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  24.) 

(4)  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  a  Jn.  15 ;  3 

ToLc,  '\n)'/c(.^  'J[J.cov  TiYvr/vOTs?  Iv  -'7\  y]Byi  u[j.2T$  xaO-apot  l<jzz  Bia  tov 
UTcaxo^  TY|?  dlrib-ziccc  ^^oyov 

Purification  comes  in  both  cases  through  the  word  (truth).  I  Pt. 
1  ;  22a  probably  depends  upon  Eph.  5  ;  26,  but  the  parallel  is  much 
closer  between  1  Peter  and  John  than  between  Ephesians  and  John. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  527 

There  is  nothing  in  Jn.  13  ;  3  to  suggest  "  cleansing  by  the  wash- 
ing of  water  by  the  word,"  nor  is  there  anything  in  the  context  of 
Ephesians  which  is  suggestive  of  Jn.  15  ;  1  f.  It  is  also  to  be  noted 
that  Jn.  15  ;  3  seems  to  be  somewhat  unnatural  in  the  parable  ; 
having  been  suggested  apparently  by  something  already  written. 
Since  I  Pt.  1  ;  22a  is  the  closest  N.  T,  parallel,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  John  depends  upon  I  Peter  at  this  point.  Cf.  also  Jn.  17  ; 
17,  19  which  is  an  essential  part  of  the  "  great  high-priestly  prayer." 

(5)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  b  Jn.  13 ;  34 

IxTsvcoi;  ...  lav  oiyoLTaiv  £X"^~2  ^'^  %)Xr^ox,c, 

Though  this  is  a  common  exhortation,  dependence  is  made  very 
probable  because  of  other  probable  points  of  contact  in  the  immediate 
context  of  I  Peter  (cf.  1  ;  19,  21,  22a  and  23),  also  because  the  con- 
text of  John  suggests  I  Peter  (cf.  13  ;  31—32),  even  mentioning 
Peter  by  name,  v.  36. 

(6)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23  Jn.  1 ;  13 

avaYsysvvYjjj.Evot     o'jk    Ix    ar.or^y.';  ol  oux,  It  aljj.aTwv,  o'jBs  Ix  D-sXtj- 

cpQ^apTYji;,     oiXkot,     acp8>apTOU,     Bia  [xcczoq  Gocpy.bc  ouVz   Ix  b-zk"f\\}.(x.^oc 

"koyo'j    uWVTOc    Bsotj    xai    [xsvov-  avBpoc  a}X  Ix  (")20^  lYoVvrjO-/i<7av 

TO?  .    .   . 

Attention  has  been  called  in  Ex.  1  to  the  idea  of  the  "  new  birth," 
but  in  the  above  parallel  we  are  also  told  how  it  was  brought  about. 
In  both  instances  the  negative  aspect  precedes  the  positive.  Our 
author  says  that  "we  are  born  not  of  corruptible  seed,"  whereas 
"  John  "  puts  it,  "  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,"  w^hich  is  clearly  an  expansion  of  the  thought  of 
I  Peter.  "  Virtually  CKopcc  and  Xoyoq  (of  I  Peter)  are  the  same 
thing  seen  in  different  lights.  Aoyoc  is  of  course  not  used  in  the 
sense  which  it  ultimately  reaches  in  St.  John."  (Hort's  First  Epistle 
of  James,"  p.  93.)  I  Peter  seems  again  to  form  a  connection  between 
the  "  logos  "  idea  of  Paul  and  the  complete  expression  of  it  in  John. 
The  phrase  of  John,  "born  of  God,"  or  of  the  "  will  of  God,"  as  the 
case  may  be,  is  suggestive  of  Jas.  1  ;  18,  which  indeed  combines  the 
ideas  of  Jn.  1  ;  13  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  23.  We  have  found  reason  elsewhere 
to  believe  that  this  verse  in  James  depends  upon  our  Epistle.  I  Peter 
understood  the  "  new  birth  "  to  have  been  effected  "  by  the  word 
of  a  living  and  abiding  God.  The  loyo^  is  God  Himself  speaking, 
speaking  not  once  only  but  with  renewed  utterance,  kindling  life  not 


528  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

only  by  recollection  but  by  a  present  power  "  (Hort  p.  92).  The 
tendency  toward  hypostatization  is  more  marked  here  than  in  the 
impUed  Xoyo?  doctrine  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Nor  does  it  seem  to 
be  a  violation  of  the  text  to  say  Jas.  1  ;  18  shows  a  still  greater 
tendency  in  this  direction.  That  "  John  "  was  acquainted  with  I  Peter 
is  made  very  probable  both  by  the  structure  and  the  sense  of 
Jn.  1  ;  13  a  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  23a.  The  antithesis  is  significant,  especi- 
ally since  it  is  followed  by  phrases  similar  in  form  and  meaning. 
John  1  ;  14  takes  up  the  word  \6y->c,  again,  as  if  at  the  suggestion 
of  another,  which  would  come  quite  naturally  from  I  Pt.  1  ;  23—25 
or  Jas.  1  ;  18.  Hort  thinks  that  "  St.  James  is  speaking  here  of  the 
original  creation  of  man."  Granting  the  truth  of  his  contention, 
the  Epistle  maystiU  show  an  influence  upon  Jn.  1  ;  1—14.  (Cf.  Jn.  1; 
3).  I  Pt.  1  ;  23  b  would  have  been  a  very  suggestive  text  for  the 
author  who  wrote  Jn.  1  ;  4a,  the  content  of  which,  significantly 
enough,  is  put  into  a  discourse  of  Jesus  (Jn.  5  ;  26).  Compare 
I  Pt.  2  ;  9b  also  with  Jn.  1  ;  4b,  which  idea  is  also  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Jesus  (Jn.  8  ;  12,  9  ;  5,  12  ;  36,  37. 

On  the  whole  then  this  parallel  seems  to  indicate  that  the  implied 
"  logos  doctrine  "  of  Paul  was  taken  up.  in  connection  with  the  idea 
of  the  "  new  birth,"  b\  our  author,  who  put  it  in  a  suggestive  fashion 
for  "  James,"  all  of  which — with  the  possible  exception  of  James — 
paved  the  way  for  the  fully  developed  form  found  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

(7)  I  Pt.  2 ;  22  Jn.  8 ;  46 

a[j.apTtai; 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  sinlessness  is  too  common,  in  itself,  to  be 
certain  that  there  is  here  any  literary  dependence.  Cf.  Isa.  53  ;  9, 
Lk.  23  ;  41,  II  Cor.  5  ;  21,  Heb.  4  ;  15,  etc.  Yet  the  following  con- 
text in  both  books  makes  dependence  here  very  probable.     Cf.  Ex.  8. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  23  Jn.  8 ;  48-50 

bt;  }vOi^opou[JL£vo?  ooTi  avirsXoiBopei,  Hx^xpsizr^c,  sT  <7tj  xai  Baijj.6vtov 
Tztkaym  o6x  YjTJsQvSt  l/si?    (;)    axexpiQ-Tj   Tvjo-olI^  'Eyw 

Bai[j.6viov    o'jY.    lyoi,    ocXkoc    '!ri[ji,o)' 

Tov    TcaTspa    [j,otj,    xat   ujjlsT^   airi- 

^apsBt^o'j  Be   Tto  xpivovTi  Bixaioic      Icr-iv  6  ^t^tcov  xai  xpivcov 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  529 

Jn.  9  ;  48—49  gives  a  concrete  case  of  what  is  mentioned  in 
I  Pt.  1  ;  23a.  I  Pt.  2  ;  23b  is  also  parallel  in  8  ;  50  by  "  Jesus'  own" 
words.  These  close  parallels  in  their  sequence,  with  Ex.  7,  can  hardly 
be  accidental. 

(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  21  Jn.  3 ;  5,  6 

6  xa\  {i]j.3.c.  avTiTU~ov  vuv  cw^st  lav  \^:'r^  tic  ^^zyyr^\i-r\  1%  uBaTO?  .  .  . 
(^a-Ti-jp-a.  o'j  c-apxo;  a-oO'cTi?  o5  B'JvaTat  stTslO'sTv  si;  -rr;/  jia- 
p'jxou  .  .  .  TtAsiav  TOiI  (■)£0'j.     TO  yoysvvTjij.s- 

vov  I/.  TTjC  Tapxo;  crap;  Ittiv 

This  very  suggestive  parallel  is  made  even  more  significant  by  the 

probable  reference  in  Jn.  3  ;  7  to  I  Pt.  1  ;  23.     Apparently  I  Peter 

depends  upon  Paul  in  this  section,  but  it  seems  quite  as  evident  that 

the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  took  up  the  Pauline  thought  of 

1  Peter  and  developed  it  into  a  narrative.     See  Note  on  Ex.  4. 

(10)  I  Pt.  4;  11  Jn.  14;  13 

tva  Iv  "aTiv  Bo'fa^TjTat  6  Wso;  I'va  Bo'faa&'Ti  6  7:aTY)p  sv  tw  uko 
Bta  TtjCtoo  XpwTO^ 

Eph.  5  ;  20  probably  furnished  the  suggestion  for  our  author, 
but  clearly  the  parallel  is  closer  between  John  and  I  Peter  than 
between  John  and  Ephesians.  "  The  glorification  of  God  through 
Christ,"  as  alluded  to  in  I  Peter,  is  a  common  doctrine  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  (13  ;  31,  17  ;  1,  4,  5,  6,  etc.),  and  is  frequently  found  in 
"  speeches  of  Jesus."  It  seems  probable  therefore  that  this  too  is 
a  case  of  natural  development. 

(11)  I  Pt.  5  ;  2  Jn.  21 ;  15,  16  f 

7:oi[j.avaTc  to  sv  U[j.Tv  -oi[j.viov  to^  -  [ioT/wS  Ta  apvia  [j.o'j.  16,  17  |36(jX£ 
©soj  -a  TcpojjaTa  [J-oli 

I  Peter  alludes  to  the  general  oversight  and  succor  of  the  church, 
such  as  an  elder  could  have  and  give,  quite  in  harmony  with  what 
is  taught  in   Jn.  21.     noi[xaivet,v  is  used  of  Christ  (Mt.  2  ;  6,  Rev. 

2  ;  17,  7  ;  17,  12  ;  5,  19  ;  15)  in  the  sense  of  "  govern,"  and  of  Chris- 
tian ministers  (Jn.  21  ;  16,  Acts  20  ;  28,  I  Pt.  5  ;  2,  3).  Iloiij-vr,  is  used 
of  the  Christian  flock,  Mt.  26  ;  31,  Jn.  10  ;  16  ;  Tcoipiov,  Lk.  12  ;  32,  Acts 
20  ;  28,  I  Pt.  5  ;  2,  3.  See  Bigg  ad  loc.  Whatever  view  be  taken  of 
the  alleged  speech  of  Paul  in  Acts  20  ;  28,  it  shows  a  movement  in 
the  Johannine  direction.  Again  the  Fourth  Gospel,  even  in  its 
appendix,  permits  us  to  hear  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  himself  ideas 
found  in  I  Peter.  This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  the  one 
following. 


530  Oya  Delmer  Foster, 

(12)  I  Pt.  5  ;  4  Jn.  10  ;  11  f. 

Tou  ap)ri7:oi[j.£vo?.     Cf.  2  ;  25. 

We  are  certain  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  depends  upon  Mark,  hence 
Mk.  6  ;  34  may  have  suggested  this  O.  T.  figure  (Isa.  40  ;  11,  53  ;  6, 
Ezek.  34  ;  23,  37  ;  24,  Ps.  23,  Zech.  13  ;  7),  which  "  John  "  elaborates. 
What  Mark  only  implies  our  author  explicitly  states,  whereas  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  takes  up  the  form  given  in  I  Peter  and 
puts  it  in  a  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  himself.  In  Heb.  13  ;  20 
Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  tov  7:oi[jiva  twv  zpopa-cov  tov  [j-syav.  The 
context,  however,  has  nothing  to  suggest  John.  On  the  other  hand 
the  "  Parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd  "  contains  much  to  suggest 
I  Pt.  5  ;  2—4  and  2  ;  25.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  our  Epistle 
served  again  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  earlier  tradition  and 
the  later  development. 

c 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  5  Jn.  10 ;  28  f. 

Toue  £v  Buva[j.£i  HsoU  (ppo'jpou[j-£-  .  .  .  ou/  apTcacst  -ziq  auxa  t%  ty]? 
vou?  .  .  .  X^'-P'^?  l-'-^^-     ^^-  1^  '  ^^  ^• 

We  have  noted  in  Galatians  (Ex.  5)  the  idea  of  "  the  believer's 
security,"  and  have  been  led  to  believe  that  our  Epistle  depends 
there  upon  Paul.  The  Fourth  Gospel  has  an  extended  discussion  on 
the  subject  (e.  g.  10  ;  28,  29,  17  ;  11,  12,  15)  and  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  development  may  have  traveled  by  way  of 
I  Peter. 

(14)  I  Pt.  1 ;  25  Jn.  1  ;  1 

TO  Bs  p7][j.a  Kupio'j  pv£i  dz  tov  sv  ap/Tj  t,v  6  Xoyo?,  xai  6  Xoyo? 
aiwva.  ttoSto  Bs  laTi  to  prj[j.(x  ry  Tzpoc  tov  Osov,  xai  Bso?  tjv 
TO  £uaYY£};i(j8"£v  si?  i)\i.di.c  6  aoyoc.     Cf.  v.  14. 

The  relationship  between  these  citations  has  been  touched  upon 
in  the  note  on  Ex.  6.     Dependence  here  seems  probable. 

(15)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21  Jn.  13 ;  15 

YjfxTv  oTzo'ki\).%(x.yo)v  6xoYpa[j.[j.6v,  tva  U7:6'hzr(\}.u  yap  IBwxa  yplv,  iva 
£7raxo}iou&"'^OTjT£  Tot^  i/v£(7iv  auTotj      Y.ix\>d)C     lyco     £^oiT|(ja     u[j.Tv,     xal 

U\).ZIC    7:01YJT£ 

This  parallel  is  suggestive  especially  since  the  "  example  "  occurs 
in  a  narrative  in  John.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  our  Epistle  has 
much  to  say  about  "  humility." 


First  Epistle  oj  Peter. 


i31 


(16)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Jn.  5 ;  22 

-Zb)     £-Ol[JlWC     XpiVOVTl     ^(OVTa?     vS\        TT^V      Xpi(7lV       T^^GCCV      B£Bo)/v£V       TO) 

vexpou?  uuo 

It  is  not  clear  from  this  passage  in  I  Peter  which  is  to  be  understood, 
Christ  or  God.  Judging  from  the  Pauhne  Hterature  upon  which 
I  Peter  surely  depends,  it  would  seem  necessary  to  conclude  that  the 
author  had  the  former  in  mind.  It  would  readily  be  interpreted  as 
such  by  anyone  in  the  latter  part  of  the  First  Century.  Apparently 
"  John  "  so  understood  it.  Reference  in  Jn.  5  ;  21  to  quickening 
the  dead,  is  very  suggestive  of  the  quick  and  the  dead  of  I  Pt.  4  ;  5. 
That  it  is  found  in  a  speech  of  Jesus  is  again  indicative  of  a  natural 
development.  We  cannot  be  certain,  however,  for  "  John  "  may 
draw  from  Paul  directly,  at  this  point,  or  even  from  some  other 
source. 


(17)  I  Pt.  4  ;  8  a 

Trpo  TcavTwv  ':rYjv  dc,  iixuzooc  aya- 
TC'/jv  IxTsv"^  lyovzzc, 


Jn.  15;  12 


It  is  to  be  noted  again  that  the  thought  of  I  Peter  is  found  in  John 
as  the  subject  matter  of  a  discourse  by  Jesus,  in  which  the  atonement 
doctrine  (15  ;  13)  is  set  forth  in  harmony  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  24.  It  is 
very  significant  that  the  general  statement  made  in  the  O.  T.  quota- 
tion in  I  Pt.  4  ;  8b  is  paralleled  in  Jn.  15  ;  13a  by  a  concrete  example. 
Note  also  that  Jn.  15  ;  16  may  allude  to  the  Petrine  doctrine  of 
election,  which  is  again  incorporated  in  a  speech  of  Jesus. 


(18)  I  Pt.  1 ;  1 

TuapsTciMjij.otc  BiaTTTopai; 
Probably  accidental. 


Jn.  7  ;  35  b 
tic  zry  BiaTTropocv  tcov'EXItvwv 


(19)  I  Pt.  1;  11  Jn.  12;  41 

Tup6[j-£vov    T7a     zli;    Xpicrov     izcc-      Bo'^av    auroij,    xai    sXa^.TjTo    -tp\ 
Q^yj^aTa  xai  tocc  [xztcc  -zxZ-y.  ^oiccc      y.'j~o\) 

.  Again  the  Pauline  thought  occurs  in  John  in  a  narrative,  but  the 
similarity  is  not  close  enough  to  indicate  dependence.  Cf.  also 
Lk.  24  ;  25,  26.  44,  46  and  Acts  26  ;  22,  23. 


532  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(20)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Jn.  12 ;  44 

.  .  ,  Bt,     auTOtj    TTtTTOtJC     SIC    ©sov      "^O    7:i(7T£UCi)v    zlc,    l\^Z    00    Z<.(j'lz6zI 

.    .    .    COffTS     TYJV     TZIG'ZIV      OIJ.WV      Xal         £1?     £IJ.£     a}Aa     £15     TOV     TiljldiaVTa 

IXmBa  sTvai  £ic  0£6v  [X£ 

Though  John  verj^  probably  depends  here  upon  Mk.  9  ;  37,.  it 
is  suggestive  in  this  connection. 


(21)  I  Pt.  3 ;  12  Jn.  9 ;  31 

xai  w~a  auToU  £i?  BEYjaiv   auTwv      oiBa[j.£v  Bs  oti  ocfj-apTOj^jov  6  0s- 

xpoffcoTiov  Be  Kupioy  Itti,  Tiowovra?      6c  oijx  axotist,  a}^^  lav   Tt^  0-so- 
xaxa  (7£|3y]c    t^    xai    to    biXr^ixcx.    ocj-zoo 

TrOlYj    TOOTOU    aXO!J£l 

There  is  here  no  necessary  connection. 


(22)  I  Pt.  3 ;  14  Jn.  14 ;  27 

irov  Bs  (popov  auTwv  [j.t,  cpo|jr,0-/;Ts,  [xy;    TapacTsaO-co    ofj-fov    r^    xapBia 

p,Y)B£  Tapa/O'-^TS"  (Cf.  3  ;  15)  xap-  [j.r,Bs  BstXiairo) 

Biaii; 

The  phraseology  is  suggestive,  yet  the  similarity  is  probably  acci- 
dental. 

(23)  I  Pt.  5  ;  1  Jn.  15  ;  27  a 

[xupzoc    Tcov    To5   Xpwro^i    Tiau-r,-      sxsTvoc  [j-apT-jpTjO-st,  7:£pl  £[j-o^i"  xai 
[xaTwv  u[j.sTc  Bs  [j-apTupsTirs 

Connection  here  is  very  doubtful. 


Conclusion  on  the  Johannine  Literature. 

Professor  Cone  notes  that  "  distinct  foreshadowings  of  the  ideas 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  epistles  ascribed  to  John  are  indeed 
not  wanting.  The  absence  of  the  mystical  profundity  of  Paul 
and  the  softening  of  some  of  the  harsher  lines  of  his  teaching  as  well 
as  several  striking  accords  with  Hebrews,  shows  the  writer  (of  our 
Epistle)  to  have  been  in  contact  with  the  later  Paulinism  which 
marks  the  transision  to  the  Johannine  theology,"  (Encyc.  Bib. 
p.  3680). 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


533 


We  have  noted  at  many  points  in  the  Gospels  and  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  where  these  "  foreshadowings "  have  been  developed  into 
extended  discourses  and  not  unfrequently  have  we  been  permitted, 
in  the  former,  to  hear  them  from  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  as  a  teaching 
of  his  own.  Ideas  of  Paul  have  been  taken  up  by  our  author  and 
treated  in  a  suggestive  fashion  for  later  writers.  I  Peter  not  only 
"  marks  the  transition,"  but  also  plays  no  small  part  in  making  the 
later  literature  possible.  From  the  parallels  cited  above  it  would 
seem  that  our  Epistle  formed  a  bridge,  as  it  were,  between  the  Pauline 
and  the  Johannine  Literatures.  Our  study,  therefore,  seems  to 
require  us  to  conclude  that  the  Johannine  Literature  (especiall}^ 
I  John  and  the  Gospel)  depends  directly  upon  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter. 


TABLES  OF  RESULTS 

Table  I 
APOSTOLIC  FATHEBS 


Classification 

No.  of  References 

Tertullian 

Clement  of  Alex.       .     . 

Irenaeus 

II  Clement 

Papias 

Justin  Martyr    .... 

Test.  XII  Pat 

Barnabas 

Hermas 

Didache    

Polycarp 

Ig^natius 

Clement  of  Rome     .     . 

A 

A 
A 

C 
A 
B 
D 

A* 

B 

D 

A* 

B 

A* 

1 
1 
3 
2 
1 
8 

13 
10 

6 
13 

5 
41 

Total 


104 


534 


Ora  Delnier  Foster, 


Table  II 

CANONICAL  BOOKS 

Classification 

N( 

).  of  References 

Galatians     .     .     . 

B 

9 

I  Thessalonians 

D 

10 

II  Thessalonians 

D 

5 

I  Corinthians    . 

C 

23 

II  Corinthians 

C-D 

13 

Romans    .     .     . 

A* 

63 

Ephesians     . 

A* 

45 

Colossians    . 

D 

14 

Philemon 

D 

— 

Philippians  , 

D 

9 

I  Timothy  ? 

D 

9 

II  Timothy  ? 

D 

5 

Titus  ?     .     . 

C-D                      14 

219  Total  in  Pauline 

Hebrews 

B 

49 

Epistles 

"  Q  "  Source 

D 

9 

Markan  Source 

D 

12 

Matthew 

D 

5 

Luke   .     . 

D 

8 

Acts    .     . 

D 

22 

James 

A* 

31 

Jude    .     . 

D 

4 

140 

Revelation 

C 

13 

I  John      . 

B 

10 

II  John    . 

D 

1 

Ill  John  . 

D 

1 

John    .     . 

!      B 

23 

48  Total  in  Joh.  Lit. 

II  Peter  . 

A 

1 

1 

Total  in  Canonical  Literature 

408 

Total  in  Apostolic  Fathers     . 

104 

Grand  total     .     .     . 

512 

Tables  of  Results. 


535 


Table  III 
The  Literature  Showins:  a  Probable  Connection  with.  I  Peter 


Classification 

Place  of 

Date 

A  A*  B  C  C-D 

Circulation     Writing 

Galatians      .     .     . 

B 

Asia          Corinth 

50 

I  Corinthians    .     . 

C 

Rome         Ephesus 

54 

II  Corinthians 

C-D 

Corinth       Ephesus 

54 

Romans    .... 

A* 

Rome          Corinth 

55 

Ephesians     .     .     . 

A* 

Asia,  Rome     Rome 

59 

Titus 

C 

?                   ? 

p 

Hebrews      .     .     . 

B 
FIRST  PEI 

Rome          Rome  ? 

?   85-90 

James      .... 

A* 

Rome  ? 

?  90-95 

Revelation    .     .     . 

C 

Ephesus 

95 

Clement  of  Rome 

A* 

Rome 

95 

I  John      .... 

B 

Ephesus 

95-100 

John 

B 

Ephesus 

100 

Ignatius   .... 

B 

Smyrna 

115 

Polycarp       .     .     . 

A* 

Smyrna 

115 

Hermas    .... 

B 

Rome 

140 

Barnabas      .     .     . 

A* 

Alexandria  ? 

130-160 

Justin 

B 

Rome 

155 

Papias      .... 

A 

HierapoUs 

145-160 

II  Clement 

A 

Alexandria 

170 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 

Histories 
Mc  GiFFERT.     History  of  the  Apostolic  Age.     1897. 
Wbizsacker.     Apostolic  Age.    Eng.  tr.  1895 
DoBSCHiJTZ.     Christian    Life    in    the    Primitive    Church.      Eng.    tr.    1904. 

The  Apostolic  Age.     Eng.  tr.  1909. 

Hadsrath.     History  of  the  New  Testament  Times. 
Ropes.     The  Apostolic  Age.     1907. 

PuRTES.     Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age.     1901. 

Harnack.     Expansion  of  Christianity. 

Wernle.     Beginnings  of  Christianity.     Eng.  tr.  1904. 

Knopf.     Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter.     1905. 

Pfleiderer.     Primitive  Christianity.     Eng.  tr.  1906. 

Bartlet.     The  Apostolic  Age.     1899. 

VoN  SoDEN.     Early  Christian  Literature.     Eng.  tr. 

Ramsay.     The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire.     1893. 

St.  Paul  the  Traveller. 

Neander.     Planting  of  the  Christian  Church.     1899. 

ScHAFF.     History  of  the  Clu'istiau  Church.  Vol.  I.     1882. 

Moeller.     History  of  the  Christian  Church.  A.  D.  1—600.     Eng.  tr.  1892. 

Fisher.     History  of  the  Christian  Church.     1896. 

Von  Schubert.     Outlines  of  Church  Historj'. 

Bacon.     The  Story  of  St.  Paul.     1904. 

Farrar.     The  Early  Days  of  Christianity.     Vol.  I.     1882. 

Mommsen.     The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.     Eng.  tr.  1887. 

Hardy.     Christianity  and  the  Roman  Government.     1894. 

Buss.     Roman  Law  and  History  in  the  New  Testament.     1901. 

Ramsay,  G.  G.     The  Annals  of  Tacitus,  Vol.  II.     1909. 

Arnold.     Die  Neronische  Christenverfolgung. 

Histories  of  Suetonius,  Dion  Cassius,  and  Eusebius. 

Reuss.     History  of  the  New  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1884. 
MoFFATT.     The  Historical  New  Testament.     1901. 

Introductions. 
Bacon.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1905. 
Zahn.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1909. 
Holtzmann.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1892. 

^  Only  the  most  important  of  those  works  which  have  been  consulted 
in  the  preparation  of  this  monograph  are  included  in  this  list. 


Ora  Delnier  Foster,  Bibliography  537 

JiJLiCHER.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1904. 
HiLGENFELD.    Historisch-Kritisdie  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.  1875. 
Peake.     a  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1910. 
Davidson.     Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  III.     1851. 
Salmon.     Historical  Introduction  to  the  Studj'  of  the  Books  of  the  New 

Testament. 
Gloag.     Introduction  to  the  Catholic  Epistles.     1887. 

B.  Weiss.     A  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    Eng.  tr.  1888. 
Bleek.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1870. 
DoDS.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

Commentaries. 
Bigg.     On  I  Peter,  International  Critical  Commentary.     1905. 
MoNNiER.     La  prem.  Ep.  de  I'apotre  Pierre.     1900. 

GuNKEL.     On  Der  erste  Brief  des  Petrus,  in  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T.  1907. 
HoLTZMANN.     On  Der  erste  Brief  des  Petrus,  in  Commentar  zum  N.  T.  III. 
Bennett.     On  General  Epistles,  in  the  Century  Bible.     1901. 
Plumptre.     On  I  Peter,  in  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools.     1880. 
Cone.     On  I  Peter  and  other  Epistles,  in  the  International  Handbook  to 

the  New  Testament  Series.     1901. 
Hart.     On  I  Peter  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament.     1910. 
Meyer.     Commentary  on  I  Peter.     Eng.  tr.  1891. 
Godet.     Commentary  on  I  Peter.     Eng.  tr.  1886. 
HiLGENFELD.     On  I  Peter  in  Schmidt  and  Holzendorff's  Short  Commentary 

on  the  New  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1884. 

Bacon.     On  Galatians  in  The  Bible  for  Home  and  School.     1909. 
LiGHTFOOT.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     1869. 

Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.     1895. 

DRDJfMOND.     On  Gal.  and    other  Epistles,   in  International   Handbook   to 

the  New  Testament  Series. 
Sanday  and  Headlam.     On  Romans,  in  the  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1902. 
HoRT.     The  Romans  and  the  Ephesians,  Prolegomena.     1895. 
Garvie.     On  Romans,  in  the  Century  Bible.     1901. 
Westcott.     The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     1906. 
Robinson.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     1903. 
Beet.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     1888. 
Abbott.     On  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  in  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1897. 
Martin.     On  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  in  The  Century  Bible. 
IjIghtfoot.     The  Epistles   of   St.   Paul,   Colossians   and    Philemon.     1892. 
Vincent.     The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Philemon,  I.  C.  C.    1897 
Milligan.     St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Tessalonians.     1908. 
Goodspeed.     On  Hebrews,  in  The  Bible  for  Home  and  School. 
Peake.     On  Hebrews,  in  The  Century  Bible. 
Mayor.     The  Epistle  of  St.  James.     1892. 
HoRT.     The  Epistle  of  St.  James. 


538  Ora  Delmer  Foster,  Bibliography. 

SwETE.     Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark.     1898. 

Allen.     On  Matthew,  in  the  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1907. 

Plummer.     On  Luke,  in  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1896. 

HeitmIjller.     Das  Johannes-Evangelium,  in  Weiss'  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T. 

Zeller.     The  Contents  and  Origin  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Eng.  tr. 

Gilbert.     On  Acts,  in  The  Bible  for  Home  and  School.     1908. 

Bartlet.     On  Acts,  in  The  Century  Bible.     1901. 

Dictionaries  and  Encyclopaedias. 
Hasting's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.     Article  on  I  Peter,  by  Chase. 
Hasting's  One  Volume  Bible  Dictionar3^     Article  on  I  Peter,  by  Palconer. 
Encj'clopsedia  Biblica,  Article  on  I  Peter,  by  Cone. 
Standard  Bible  Dictionary.     Article  on  I  Peter  by,  Dods. 
Encyclopaedia  Britanuica.     Article  on  I  Peter,  by  Harnack. 
The  New  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia.     Article  on  Peter  the  Apostle,  by 
Seiffert. 

General. 
Weiss,  B.     Der  Petrinische  Ijehrbegriff.     1855. 

ScHARFE.     Die  Petrinische  Stromung  der  neutestamentlichen  Literatur. 
Harnack.     Die  Chronologie.     1H97. 

LiGHTFOOT.     The  Apostolic  Fathers,  Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  etc. 
The  Ante-!Nicene  Fathers,  Published  by  the  Christian  Lit.  Co.     1896. 
Oxford  Committee  of  Hist.  Theol.     The  N.  T.  in  Apostolic  Fathers.   1905. 
DiTTMAR.     Vetus  Testamentum  in  Novo. 
Toy.     Quotations  in  the  New  Testament.     1884. 
Hawkins.     Horae  Synopticae.     1899. 
Vincent.     Word  Studies. 

Thayer.     W^ord  Lists  in  Appendix  to  the  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  N.  T. 
Harnack.     Sayings  of  Jesus.     Eng.  tr.  1908.     Also  on  Acts. 
Smith,  W^.  B.     Der  vorchristliche  Jesus.     1906. 
Schmidt.     Zwei  Fragen  zum  ersten  Petrusbrief,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  wissen- 

schaftliche  Theologie.     1908.     P.  24-52. 
Ramsay.     The  Flavian  Persecution  in   the    Province   of   Asia,   Expositor 

Vol.  X,  p.  241  ff. 
The  Church  and  the  Empii-e  in  the  First  Century.     Expositor  1893, 

pages  8  ff.,  110  ff.  and  283  ff.. 
Harris.    Expositor  1909,  p.  155  ff. 

Charles.     Greek  Version  of  the  XII  Patriarchs.     1908. 
CoNEYBEARE  and  Kohler.     On  the  XII  Patriarchs,  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 


TRSNSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 

Incorporated  A.  D.  1799 
VOLUME  XVII  1912-15 


Publications 
of  Yale  University 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,   CONNECTICUT 
1913 


THt   R.   WAGNKR  SOHN   TRESS 


OFFICERS   FOR   1911-12. 


President. 

His  Excellency  SIMEON  E.  BALDWIN. 

Vice-PresidetUa. 

Prof.  ALEXANDER  W.  EVANS,  Prof.  CLIVE  DAY, 

Prof.  HANNS  OERTEL. 

Secretary. 

Dr.  GEORGE  F.  EATON. 

Treasurer. 

Mr.  GEORGE  PARMLY  DAY. 

Librarian. 

Mr.  JOHN  CHRISTOPHER  SCHWAB. 


Committee  on  Publication. 


Exc.  S.  E.  BALDWIN,  Chairman, 
Prof.  A.  S.  COOK, 
Prof.  E.  S.  DANA, 
Prof.  E.  P.  MORRIS, 


Prof.  A.  W.  EVANS, 
Prof.  CLIVE  DAY, 
Prof.  H.  OERTEL, 
Mr.  J.  C.  SCHWAB. 


I* 


COISTTENTS. 


PAGE 

Additions  to  the  Library,  July  1,  1911,  to 

Art.  I. — The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut,  1789 — 1861. 

By  Henry  F.  Walradt 1—139 

Art.  II. — The  Authorship  of  the  Second  and  Third  Parts 

OF  "King  Henry  VI".     By  C.  F.  Tucker  Brooke      .    141-211 
Art.  III. — The    Date   of    the   Ruthwell   and    Newcastle 

Crosses.     By  Albert  S.  Cook 213-361 

Art.  IV. — The  Literary  Relations  of  the  First  Epistle 

OF  Peter  with  their  Bearing  on  the  Date  and  Place 

OF  Authorship.     By  Ora  D.  Foster    ....    863—538 


ADDITIONS  TO  THE  LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 
By  Gift  and  Exchange  from  Jdly  1,  1911,  to  Aug.  31,  1912. 

Aix-en-Provence.—  Universite. 

Faculte  des  lettres.     Annales.     IV,  1-2.     1910. 
Amiens. — Academe  des  sciences,  des  lettres  et  des  arts. 

Memoires.     LVIl.  1910. 
Amsterdam. — Akademie  van  wetenschappen. 

Jaarboek.     1910. 

Section  of  sciences.    Proceedings.   XIII,  1—2.    Af deling  Natuur- 
kunde. 

Verliandelingen.    Sectie  I,  X,  2,  XI,  1-2 ;   Sectie  11,  XVI,  4-5. 

Verslagen  van  de  vergaderingen.     Deel  XIX,  1—2.     1910—11. 
Maatschappij  tot  nut  van  t'algemeen. 

Jaarboek.     1911-12. 

Publications.    95-99, 
Meteorologisch  instituut. 

Annuaire.     1910,  A— B. 

Mededeelingen  en  verliandelingen.     CII,  1912. 
Angers. — Societe  Nationale  d' agricidture,  sciences  et  arts. 

Memoires.     Ser.  V,  T.  Xni,  1910. 
Antwerp. — Academic  Royale  d'archeologie  de  Belgique. 

Bulletin.     1911,  1-1912,  2. 
Argentine  Republic. — Comision  del  censo  agro-pecuario. 

1908,  I-III,  with  maps. 
A0GSBDR(;. — Naturivissenschaftlicher  Verein  fur  Schivaben  und  Neuburg. 

Bericht.     XXXIX-XL,  1911. 
Basel. —i\''ah<r/'orsc/ie/uZe  Gesellschaft. 

Verhandlungen.     XXII. 
Batavia. — Magnetisch  en  meteorologisch  observatoriwn. 

Seismological  bulletin.     Marcli— May,  July,  Oct.  and  Dec,  1911. 

Verhandelingen.     No.  1—2,  1912. 
Bergen. — Museum. 

Aarbog.     1910,  3-1911,  2. 

Aarsberetning.     1910. 

Skrifter.     N.  E.,  Bd.  I,  1. 


VIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Berlin. — Deutscher  Seefischerei-Verein. 
Mitteilungen.     XXVIII,  1. 
Universitdt.     K.  Zoologisches  Museum. 
Bericht.     1910. 

Mitteilungen.     V,  3-VI,  1.     1911—12. 
Bern. — Naturforschencle  Gesellschaft. 

Verhandlungen.     XCIV,  1911. 
Birmingham. — Natural  History  and  Philosophical  Society. 
Annual  Report.     1911. 
List  of  Members.     1912. 
Bologna. — R.  Accademia  delle  scienze  delU  Istituto. 

Bendiconto.     Classe  di  scienze  fisiche.    N.  S.,  V,  1—4 ;  XIV. 

Ciasse  di  scienze  niorali.     Ser.  I,  T,  IV. 
Memorie.     Classe  di  scienze  niorali. 

Sez.  di  scienze  giuridiche,  Ser.  I.     T.  V,  1. 
Sez.  di  scienze  storico-filologiche,  Ser.  I,  T.  V,  1. 
Bonn. — Naturhistorischer  Verein  der  preussischen  Rheinlande  und  Westfalens. 
Sitzungsbericht.     1910,  2-1911,  1. 
Verhandlungen.     LXVII,  2-LXVIII,  1,  1910-11. 
Boston. — American  academy  of  arts  and  sciences. 

Proceedings.    XLVI,  25 ;  XLVII,  4-21  ;  XLVIII.  1.     1911-12. 
Museum  of  fine  arts. 

Bulletin.     52-7,  1911-12. 
Society  of  statural  history. 
Memoir.     VII,  1912. 
Bradford. — Scientific  association. 

Journal.     Ill,  1,  3-6,  1911. 
Bremen. —  Meteorologisches  Observatorium. 

Deutsches  meteorologisches  Jahrbuch.     XXI,  1910 ;  XXII,  1911. 
Naturivissenschaftlicher  Verein. 
Abbandlungen.     XX,  2,  1911. 
Breslau. — Schlesische  Gesellschaft  fiir  vaterldndische  Kultur. 

Jahres-Bericht.     LXXXVIII,  1-2,  1910. 
Brighton. — Brighton  and  Hove  natural  history  and  philosophical  society. 

Annual  report  and  abstract  of  papers.     1910. 
Brisbane. — Royal  Geographical  society,  Queensland  branch. 

Queensland  geographical  journal.     N.  S.,  XXV,  1909—10. 
Queensland  museum. 

Annals.     1,  2,  4,  6,  7,  10. 
Bristol. — Naturalists''  society. 

Proceedings.     Ser.  IV,  II,  3-111,  1;  Index  to  II. 
Brooklyn. — Institute  of  arts  and  sciences. 

Bulletin.     Vn,  1,  and  Index  to  VI. 

Museum  news.     VII,  5—8. 

Year  Book.     XX-XXII,  1907-11. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  IX 

Brunn. — NaturforscJiender  Verein. 

Ergebnisse  der  phauologisclien  Beobachtungen  aus  Mahreu  und 

Schlesien  im  Jalire  1906. 
Meteorologische  Kommission.     Bericht.     XXVI,  1908. 
Verhandluugen.     XLVIII,  1909. 
Brussels. — Academic  Royale  des  sciences,    des  lettres  et  des  beaux-arts  de 
Belgique. 

Annuaire.     LXXVIII,  1912. 

Bulletin.     Classe  des  sciences.     1911,  6—1912.  5. 

Memoires.     Classe    des   sciences.     Ser.   II,  T.  Ill,    6-8  (8vo.) ; 

T.  Ill,  6  (4o). 
Notices  biograpbiques  et  bibliograpbiques,  5e  ed. 
International  Congress  of  botany,  Third. 

Actes,  I-II.     1910. 
Musee  Royal  d'histoire  naturelle  de  Belgique. 

Memoires.     T.  IV,  Index.     Traquair,  Les  poissons  Wealdiens  de 
Bernissart ;  Lambert,  Ecbinides  cretaces ;  Kidston,  Les  vege- 
taux  houillers. 
Observatoire  Royal  de  Belgique. 

Annales,  Physique  du  globe.     V,  1—2. 
Annuaire  astronomique.     1913. 
Societe  entomologique. 
Annales.     LV. 
Memoires.     XIX.     1912. 
Societe  R.  Beige  de  geographic. 

Bulletin.     XXXV,  1-XXXVI,  1.     1911-12. 
Societe  R.  dc  botanique. 

Bulletin.     XLVIII,  1-4.     1910. 
Societe  R.  zoologique  et  malacologique. 
Annales.     XLV-XLVI.     1910-11. 
Societe  scientifique. 

Annales.    XXXV,  3-6;  XXXVI,  2.     1910-12. 
Revue  des  questions  scientifiques.     XX,  1— XXII,  1.     1911—12. 
Bryn  Mawr  college  monographs.    VII— X. 
Bucharest.— <Socie^a/e  de  sciinte. 

Buletinul.     XX,  2-XXI,  2. 
Budapest. — Magyar  Tndomdnyos  akademia. 

Mathematische  und  naturwissenschaftliche  Berichte  aus  Ungarn. 

XXVI,  pp.  1-272. 
Rapports  sur  les  travaux.     1910. 
Meteorologiai  es  Foldmdgnessegi  Intezet. 
Bericht.     IX.     1908. 

Jahrbuch.     XXXVII,  1-XXXVIII,  1,  4.     1907-8. 
Verzeichnis  der  .  .  .  Biicher.     VIII.     li»09. 
Officielle  Publikationen.     IX.     1909. 


X  Additions  to  the  Library. 

BvBAPEST.  —  Tudomdny-egyetem. 

Acta.     1909-10,  I-II ;  1910-11,  1. 

Almanach.     1910-11. 

Tanrende.     1909-10,  I-II;  1910-11,  I-II. 
Buenos  Aires. — Museo  Nacional. 

Anales.     Ser.  Ill,  T.  XIV. 
Direccion  general  de  estadistica. 

Boletin  meiisual,  121-3.     1910. 
Sociedad  cientifica  Argentina. 

Anales.     LXX,  5-LXXIII,  1.     1911-12. 
BxjRTON-ON-TRKiiT.— Natural  history  and  archceological  society. 

Transactions.     VI.     1911. 
Calcutta. — Asiatic  society  of  Bengal. 

Journal  and  proceedings.     VII,  1—3. 

Memoir.     UI,  2—4  ;  index  to  v.  II. 
Indian  museum. 

Natural  history  section.     Annual  report.     1909—11. 

Memoirs.     II,  4,  and  index  ;  III,  1—2. 

Records.    Ill,  index  ;  IV,  1-9 ;  V,  1-4 ;  VI,  1-5. 
California  academy  of  sciences. 

Proceedings.     Ser.  IV,  v.  I,  289-430  ;  III,  73-186. 
Cambeai.— (Socie^e  d' emulation. 

Memoires.     LXV.     1910. 
Cambridge  (England). — Philosophical  society. 

Transactions.     XXI.     397—451. 
University.    Observatory. 

Annual  report.     1910—11. 
Cameron  (La.).— (tW/'  biological  station. 

Biennial  report.     V.     1910. 

Bulletin.     IX-X. 
Canada. — Archives. 

Report  on  Canadian  archives.     1910. 
Department  of  mines.    Mines  Branch. 

Annual  report  on  the  mineral  production  of  Canada.    1909—10. 
Forestry  branch.     Bulletin.     21—30. 
Geological  Survey. 

Maps.     1064,  1066,  1113,  1130,  1150. 

Memoir.     24  E,  27,  28. 

Sheets  84,  99. 
Canadian  forestry  association. 

Eeport.     1909-10. 
Canadian  forestry  convention. 

Report.     1904-5,  1907-11. 
Canadian  forestry  journal.    VII,  1—4,  6 ;  VIII,  1—4,  1911—12. 
Canadian  railway  club.     Official  proceedings.    X,  6-9  ;  XI,  1-5. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XI 

Cape  Town.— i?o?/aZ  society  of  South  Africa. 

Transactions.     IT,  3-4,  1912. 
Caracas. — Accademia  Nacional  de  la  historia. 

Hamon  Azpuri'ia,   Biografias   de  liombres  notables  de  Hispano- 
America.     I— IV. 

Colleccion   de   documentos  para   la  liistoi'ia    de  la  vida  piiblica 
del  Libertador.     I-XIV. 
Cassel. —  Verein  fiir  Naturkunde. 

Festschrift,  1911. 
Catania.  -Accademia  Gioenia. 

Bollettino  delle  sedute.     N.  S.,  18-21.     1911-12. 
Societa  degli  spetfroscopisti  Italiana. 

Memoria.     XL,  8-12  ;  Ser.  II,  T.  I,  1-8. 
Ceylon. — Administration  reports. 

Part  IV,  JJducation,  science,  and  art.    Marine  biology.     Eeport. 
1910-11. 
Chalons-sdr-Saone. — Societe  dliistoire  et  d'archeologie. 

Memoires.     Ser.  II,  IV,  1.     1911. 
Cheltenham. — Natural  Science  Society. 

Proceedings.     N.S.  I,  4-5,  1910-1911. 
Chemnitz.  —Naturivissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft. 

Bericht.     XVIII.     1909-10. 
Cherbourg. — Societe  Rationale  des  sciences  naturelles  et  mathhnatiqiies. 

Memoires.     XXXVII. 
Chicago. — Field  Museum  of  statural  history. 

Publications.     161-8,  160. 
John  Crerar  Library. 

Annual  report.     XVII.     1911. 
Christiania. —  Videnskabs-selskabet . 

Forhandlinger.     1910. 
Cincinnati. — Lloyd  library. 

Bibliographical  contributions.     3—6.     1911—12. 

Bulletin.     Mycological  series,  20.     Pharmacy  series.  18—19. 
University. 

Record.     VII,  5-8;  VIII,  1-3. 

University  studies.     Ser.  II,  Vol.  VII,  1-2.     1912. 
C  OLOMB  0 . — Museum. 

Spolia  Zeylanica,  Vni,  29-30. 
Colorado  College. — 

Publications.    Engineering  series.    I,  11—12,  1911  ;  science  series. 
XII,  10-11.     1912. 
Colorado  scientific  society. 

Proceedings.     XX,  39-54,  75-284. 
Colorado. —  University  of. 

Studies.    VIII,  4-IX,  3.     1911-12. 


XII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Copenhagen. — K.  Danske  videnskabernes  selskab. 

Skrifter.     Historisk-filosofisk   afdeling.     R.  7,   I-II,   2.     Natur- 
videnskabelig-mathematisk    afdeling.      E.    7,    I— V,    VII,    1, 
VIII-IX,  1.     1904-11. 
Naturhistoricke  forening. 

Videnskabelige  meddelelser.     1910—11. 
Corona.— E.  Academia  Gallega. 

Boletin.     VI,  48-63.     1912. 
Croydon. — Microscopical  Club. 

Proceedings  and  transactions.     1910—11. 
Denison  University.— 

Bulletin  of  the  scientific  laboratories.     XVII,  1-201.     1912. 
Detroit. — Museum  of  art. 

Annual  report.  1911. 
Bulletin.     V,  3- VI,  3.     1911-12. 
DoRPAT. — Gelehrte  estnische  Gesellschaft. 
Sitzungsbericlite.     1910—11. 
Naturforscher-Gesellschaft. 
Bibliothek.     Telle  I-II. 
Schriften.     XX. 

Sitzungsbericht.     XIX,  1-XX,  4.     1910-11. 
Dresden. — Naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft  Isis. 

Sitzungsbericlite   und  Abhandlungen.     July,   1910 — Dec,    1911. 
Verein  fur  Erdkunde. 

Mitteilungen.     H.  7-9,  1908-9  ;  II,  1-4.     1910-12. 
Dublin. — Pharmaceutical  society  of  Ireland. 
Calendar.     XXXVI.     1912. 
Royal  Dublin  society. 

Economic  proceedings.     II,  3—4. 

Scientific  proceedings.     N.  S.  XIII,  11-23.     1911-12. 
Scientific  transactions.     IN.  S.  XII,  37  ;  XIII,  1-10.     1911. 
Royal  Irish  academy. 

Cunningham  memoirs.     Index,  1786—1906. 

Irish  MSS.  Series.     Index,  1786-1906. 

Proceedings.     Clare  Island   survey.     XXXI,  2,   10-14,  23-24, 

35-38,  51-52,  56,  60,  63,  65. 
Proceedings.       Series   A.      XXIX,  3,   5    and    index,   1911—12 ; 
Series  B.      XXIX,  5 -XXX,  2   and  index;    Series  C.  XXIX, 
7—9  and  index. 
Todd  Lecture  Series.    Index,  1786-1906. 
Transactions.     Index,  1786—1906. 
Trinity  College. 

Hermathena.     37.     1911. 
Edinburgh. — Royal  physical  society. 
Proceedings.     XVIII,  3. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XIII 

Edinburgh.  — i?o«/ai  society  of  Edinburgh. 

Proceedings.     XXXI,  4-5;  XXXII,  1-3. 

Trausactions.     XLVII,  3-XLVIII,  1.     1910-12. 
Elberfeld. — Chemisches  Untersuchungsamt. 

Bericht.     1909-11. 
Naturwisse7ischaftlicher  Verein. 

Jahres-Bericht.     XIII,  1912. 
Elisha  Mitchell  scientific  society. 

Journal.     XXVII,  1-XXVIII,  2.     1911-12. 

'EjUbes. —Natiirforschende  Gesellschaft. 
Jaliresbericht.     XCV.     1910. 

Florence. — Societd  entomologica  Italiana. 

Bollettino.  XLII,  1-4.  1910. 
Biblioteca  nazionale  centrale. 

Bollettino.  110-40.  1911-12. 
Formosa. — Bureau  of  productive  industry. 

Icones  plantarum  Formosanarum.     I.     1911. 

Frankfort  a.  M. — Deutsche  malakozoologische  Gesellschaft. 
'       IN^aclirichtsblatt.     XLIIl,  3-XLIV,  2.     1911-12. 
Soickenbergische  naturforschende  Gesellscha/t. 

Abhandlungen.     XXIX,  4  ;  XXXIII,  4-XXXIV,  2. 
Bericht.     1911,  1-4. 
'Freiburg  I.  B.— Naturforschende  Gesellschaft.  • 

Bericht.     XVIIl,  2-XIX,  1.     1911. 

Friboorg. — Societe  Fribourgeoise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

Bulletin.     III-IV,  VII~XII,  XIV-XVIII.     1883-1910. 

Memoires.     Geologic  et  geographic.     I,  1  ;  II,  1—4  ;  III,  1     IV ; 
1-3 ;  V,  5  ;  VI,  6  ;  VII,  7. 
Geneva. — Societe  de  physique  et  d'histoire  naturelle. 

Compte  rendu.     XVIII.     1911. 

Memoires.  XXXVII,  2.  1911. 
Gkra.— Gesellschaft  von  Freunden  der  Naturwissenschaften. 

Jahresbcricht.     1910-11. 
GiESSEN.^  Universifdt. 

177  dissertations. 
Glasgow. — Natural  History  Society. 

Glasgow  Naturalist.     Ill,  1-IV,  2. 
Royal  philosophical  society. 

Proceedings.  XLII.  1910-11. 
GoRLiTZ. —Naturforschende  Gesellscliaft. 

Abhandlungen.  XXVII.  1911. 
GoTTiNGEN.— Z.  Gesellschaft  der   Wissenschaften. 

Philologische  Klasse.     Nachrichten.    1910,  1-1912,  1  ;  and  Bei- 
heft  1-2.     1910. 


XIV  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Graz.  — Naturwissenschaftlicher   Verein  fur  Steiermark. 

Mitteilungen.     XLVI-XLVII.     1909-10. 
Grenoble.  —  Universite. 

Annales.     XXIII,  2. 
GcELPH.  —  Wellington  field  naturalints'  club. 

jMatural  science  bulletin.     1—6.     1905—10. 
Haarlem. — Hollandsche  maaschappij  der  icetenschappen. 

Ser.  III.  A.     I,  1-4  ;  B.  I,  1-2. 
Halifax.  — Nova  Scotian  institute  of  science. 

Proceedings  and  transactions.      XII,  3— XIII,  1.     1908/9—11. 
Halle  a.  ^.—Naturforschende  Gesellschaft. 
Abhandlung.     N.  F.     I.     1912. 
Mitteilung.     I.     1911. 
Hamburg. — Deutsche  Seewarte. 

Annalen   der  Hydrographie  und  maritimen  Meteorologie.     XL, 

1-8.    1912. 
Aus  dem  Archiv.     XXXIV,  1-XXXIII,  4. 
Deutsches  meteorologisches  Jahrbucli.     XXXIII.     1910. 
Jahresbericht.     XXXIV.     1910. 
Naturwissenschaftlicher   Verei^i. 

Verliandlungen.     XVIII.     1910. 
Harvard  University.— Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology. 
Annual  report.     1910-11. 

Bulletin.     LIII,  7-9;  LIV,  6-14;  LV,  1.     1911-12. 
Memoirs.    XXV,  3-4;  XXVII,  4 ;  XXXVin,  2;  XXXIX,  2-3; 
XL,  4.     1911-12. 
Observatory. 

Annals.     LVI,  6-7;  LIX,  9-10;   LXI,  3  ;  LXIII,  1;  LXXI,  2  ; 

LXXII,  1-3. 
Annual  report.     LXVI.     1911. 
Circular.     1-30,  166-74. 
Report  of  Visiting  Committee.     28. 
Havana. — Academia  de  ciencias  medicas,  fisicas  y  naturales. 

Anales.    VII,  79  ;  VIII-IX  ;  XIV-XVI  ;  XVII,  191-5,  198-202  ; 
XVIII-XIX,  203-26  ;    XX,  XXI,  248  ;    XXII,   252  ;    XXIII, 
264-8,     270-4;      XXIV,    276;      XXV-XXXVI,     287-428; 
XXXVII-LXVIII  (March,  1912). 
Colegio  de  Belen. 

Observaciones  meteorologicas  y  magneticas.     1910. 
Museum  d'histoire  naturelle. 
Notice,  1911. 
Havre. —iSode^e  geologique  de  Normandie. 

Bulletin.     XXX.     1910. 
Hawaii — Board  of  agriculture  atid  forestry. 

Division  of  Forestry.     Botanical  bulletin.     1.     1911. 


Additions  to  the  Librmy.  XV 

Hawaii  College.     Publication.     1.     1912. 
Helgoland. — K.  Biologische  Anstalt. 

Wissenschaftliche  Meeresuutersuchungen,  Abteilung  Helgoland. 
N.  P.     II,  I,  1;  II,  1  (2);  IV,  1-2;  V,  1  (2);  VI,  1-X,  1. 

Abteilung  Kiel.     I,  2  ;  II,  2 ;  III-X  ;  XIII.     1896-1911. 
Helsingfors. — Finska  vetenskaps-societeten. 

Acta.     XXXVIII,  4  ;  XL,  6-8  ;  XLI ;  4,  6-7. 

Bidrag  till  kannedom  af  Finlands  natur  och  folk.     LXX,  1— 2; 
LXXI,  1-2 ;  LXXII,  2-5,  LXXIII,  1-2. 

Meteorologiska  Centralanstalt.     Meteorologisches  Jahrbuch   fur 
Finnland.     IV,  1904;  Beilage,  1903.     IX,  T.  2.     1909. 

Ofersigt  af  forliandlingar.     LIII,  A-C,  1910-11. 
Societas  pro  Fauna  et  Flora  Fimiica. 

Acta.     XXXV.     1909-11. 

Meddelanden,  XXXVI-XXXVII,  1909-11. 
HoBART. — Royal  society  of  Tasmania. 

Annual  report.     1911. 

Papers  and  proceedings.     1910—11. 
Honoldld. — Bernice    Pauahi    Bishop    museum    of  Polynesian    ethnology   & 
natural  history. 

Memoirs.     III. 

Occasional  papers.     IV,  4-5;  V,  I.     1909—11. 
Illinois. — State  laboratory  of  natural  history. 

Bulletin.     IX,  4.     1911. 

Report.     1909-10. 
India. — Bombay  Presidency.     Rainfall  in  Bombay.     Vol.  I. 
Board  of  Scientific  advice. 

Annual  report.     1910—11. 
I.  Departement  of  agricidture. 

Memou'S.     Botanical  series.     IV,  2-5.     1911—12. 

Chemical  series.     I,  10-11,  3.     1911-12. 

Entomological  series.     II,  9-10;  III,  1,  IV,  1.     1911-12. 

Report  of  progress  of  agriculture.     1910—11. 

Agricultural  Research  Institute,  Pusa.     Report.     1910—11. 
Geological  Survey. 

Records.     XL,  4.     1910. 
Meteorological  department. 

Rainfall  in  India.     XX.     1910. 

Annual  summary.     1910. 

Monthly  Weather  Review.     March,  1911  — March,  1912. 

Report  of  administration.     1910—11. 
Indiana  Academy  of  Science. 

Proceedings.     1910. 
Iowa  Academy  of  Sciences. 

Proceedings.     XVI-XVIIL     1909-11. 


XVI  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Iowa. — State  University. 

Laboratory  of  Natural  History.     Bulletin.    VI,  2. 
Italy. — 22.  Comitato  geologico. 

Bollettino.     1910,  4-1911,  4. 
Jena. — Medizinisch-naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft. 

Jenaisclie    Zeitsclirift  fiir  Naturwissenscliaft.     XL,  3— XLI,   2. 
1911-12. 
Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Circular.     1911,  6-1912,  5. 
Kansas. — Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.     XXIII-XXIV.     1911. 
University. 

Science  bulletin.     V,  12-VI,  1. 
Kasan. — Observatoire  meteorologique. 

Bulletin.     1911. 
Societi  physico-mathematique. 

Bulletin.     Ser.  II.     T.  XVI,  4-XVII,  4.     1910-11. 
KiKL.—Naturwissenschaftlicher  Verein  fiir  Schleswig-Holstein. 

Schriften.     XV,  1. 
K.  Universitdt. 

Chronik.     1910-11. 

Dissertations  (58). 
KiEW. — Societe  des  naturalistes. 

Memoires.     XXI,  3—4. 
Kingston. — Institute  of  Jamaica. 

Annals.     I,  1. 

Bulletin.     I,  1. 
KoDAiKANAL. — Observatory. 

Annual  report.     1911. 

Bulletin.     XXIV-XXV. 
KoNiGSBERG  I.  Pr. — Physikalisch-okonomische  Gesellschaft. 

Schriften.    XLIX,  1908;  LI,  1910;  Generalregister.   1885-1909. 
Krakow.— Jf.  K.  Stermvarte. 

Meteorologiscbe  Beobachtungen.     June,  1911— July,  1912. 

Resultate    der    meteorologischen,    seismologisclien  und  magne- 
tischen  Beobachtungen.     1911. 
Akademija  Umiejetnosci,  Komisya  Fizyjograficzna. 

Materyaly  zebrane  przez  Sekcye  meteorologiczna.     1910. 
Kyoto.— J.  University. 

College  of  Science  and  Engineering.  Memoirs.  Ill,  4—7.  1911—12. 
La  Plata. — Museo. 

Revista.     XVII-XVIII.     1910-12. 
Universidad. 

Archivos    de    pedagogia    y   sciencias    afinas.     VIII,  24,  IX,  28. 
1911-12. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XVII 

La*Rochelle. — Academie  des  belles  lettres,  sciences  et  arts,  Section  des  sciences 
naturelles. 

Anuales.     XXXVI,  1908-10. 
Ladsanne. — Societe  vmidoise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

Bulletin.     XLVII,  173-XLVIII,  175. 
I^EIPZIG.—Fiirstl.  JablonoirsJci'sche  Gesellschaft. 
Jahresbericlit,  March,  1909. 
N atnrforschende  Gesellschaft. 

Sitzungsbericlit.     1907-11. 
K.   Sdchsische  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschafteii. 

Mathematlscli-physikalischeKlasse.  Berichte.  LXII,  6— LXI1I,6. 
1910-11. 
Verein  fur  Erdkunde. 
Mitteilnngen.     1910. 
Leyden. — Nederlandsche  dierkundige   Vereeniging. 
Tijdsclirift.     Ser.  II,  D.  XII,  2. 
Aanwinsten  der  Bibliotheek,  1910—12. 
Rijksuniversiteit.     Sterrewacht. 
Verslag.     1906-8. 
LiMBORG. — Provinciaal  genootschap  voor  geschiedkundige  tvetenschappen,  taal 
en  kunst. 

Limburg's  jaerboek.     XVII,  1-4 ;  XVIII,  2.     Catalog,  1912. 
LiNZ. — Museum  Francisco-Car olinum. 

Jahresbericlit.     70. 
Lisbon. — Sociedade  de  geographia. 

Boletim.     XXIX,  4-XXX,  5.     1911—12. 
Liverpool. — Biological  society. 

Proceedings.     XXV.     1910-11. 
Geographical  society. 

Transactions  and  annual  report.     XX.     1911. 
London  — Geological  society. 

Geological  literature  added  to  library.     1910. 
List.     April  1912. 
Linnean  society. 
List.     1911-12. 
Proceedings.     123  d  session. 
Journal  (Botany).     273-277,  279.     1911-12. 
National  physical  laboratory. 
Report.     1911. 

Collected  researches.     VIII,  12. 
Patent  Office  library. 

Subject  lists.     YK-ZZ.     1911. 
Roentgen  society. 

Journal.    VII,  28- VIII,  32.     1911-12. 
R.  Geographical  society. 

Geographical  journal.     XXXVII,  6-XL,  2.     1911-12. 

n 


XVIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

London. — Geological  society. 

Quarterly  journal.     267-70.     1911-12. 
Mathematical  society. 

Proceedings.     X,  1-6  ;  XI,  1-3.     1911-12. 
R.  Microscopical  society. 

Journal.     1911,  4-1912,  4. 
Royal  society. 

Philosophical    transactions.      Series    A.      477—87.       Series     B. 
285-94.     1911-12. 

Philosophical    proceedings.      Series    A.      580—94.       Seiies    B. 
LXXXIV,  569-80.     1911-12. 
jR.  Photographic  society  of  Great  Britain. 

Photographic  journal.     LI,  6-LIl,  6.     1911-12. 
South  London  entomological  and  natural  history  society. 

Proceedings,  1911—12. 

LoDisiANA. — State  museum. 

Biennial  report.     II.     1910. 

Lund. — K.  Universitet. 

Bibliothek,  Arsberattelse.     1910. 

Lyons. — Bulletin  historique  du  diocese  de  Lyon. 
69-73.     1911-12. 
Societe  des  amis  de  VUniversite. 

Bulletin.     XXIV,  2-5  ;  XXV,  1-3. 
IJniversite. 

Annales.     Science-medecine.     XXX,  1911. 

McGill  University.     Papers  from  the  deparment  of  geoloy,  17-23. 

Madras. — Fisheries  bureau. 
Bulletin.     II,  6. 
Madrid.— ii.  Academia  de  ciencias  exactas,  fisicas  y  naturales. 
Eevista.     V,  9-VI,  12  ;  IX,  9-X,  7,  10. 
Memorias.     XXVI.     1908. 
JK.  Academia  de  la  historia. 
Boletin.     LIII,  4-LXI,  2. 
Cortes    de    los    antiguos    reinos    de   Aragon    y    de  Valencia  y 

Principado  de  Cataluna.     XIII-XV.     1909-11. 
Memorial  historico  espanol.     XLIV— XLV.     1911—12. 
Observatorio. 

Anuario.     1912. 
Magdeburg. —  Musewm  fUr  Natur-  und  Heimatkunde. 
Abhandlungen  und  Berichte.     II,  2. 

Maine. — Agricultural  experiment  station. 
Bulletin.     200.     1912. 

Manchester  (England). — Literary  and  philosophical  society. 
Memoirs  and  proceedings.     LV,  2— LVI,  1. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XIX 

Manchester  (England). —  University. 

Publications.    Economic  series.    XIII,  1910  ;  Educational  series. 
IV— VI ;  English   series.     II  ;    Historical  series.     XII— XIII  ; 
Physical  series.     II. 
Manchester,  N.  H. — Institute  of  arts  and  sciences 

Proceedings.     V,  1.     1911. 
Marbdrg. — Gesellschaf't  ztcr  Beforderung  der  gesamteyi  Naturwissenschaften. 

Sitzungsbericlite.     1911. 
Mark,  E.  L.     Anniversary  volume.     1903. 
Melbodrne. — National  Museum. 
Memoirs.     4. 
Royal  society  of  Victoria. 

Proceedings.     N.  S.     VII-XXIV,  2. 
Transactions.     IV;  V,  1.     1895,  1909. 
Mexico. — Academia  Mejicana  de  la  lengua. 
Memorias.     I,  1—4;  V— VI. 
Instituto  geologico. 

Boletin.     28.     1911. 
Parergones.     Ill,  9—10. 
Instituto  medico  nacional. 

Anales.     XII,  1-2.     1912. 
Museo  nacional  de  arqueologia,  histwia  y  etnologia. 
Anales.     I,  1-13;  II,  1-9;  III,  1-5,  7-8. 
Boletin.     I,  1-4,  6-11.     1911-12. 
Museo  nacional  de  historia  natural. 

La  naturaleza.     Ser.  Ill,  T.  I,  2—3. 
Observatorio  astronomico  nacional. 

Boletin.     1. 
Observatorio  meteorologico-magnetico  central. 

Boletin.     Aug.,  1910-April.,  1912. 
Sociedad  cientifica  „Antonio  Alzate". 

Memoria  y  Revista.     XXVHI,  9-XXX,  6. 
Sociedad  geologica  Mexicana. 
Boletin.     VII,  2. 
Michigan  academy  of  sciences. 

Report.     XIII.     1911. 
Middelbdrg. — Zeeutvsch  genootschap  der  wetenschappen. 

Archief.     1911. 
Milan. — R.  Istituto  Lombardo  di  science  e  lettere. 

Rendiconto.     Ser.  II,  T.  XLIV,  1-14,  17-20. 
Societd  Italiana  di  scienze  naturali  e  del  Museo  Civico. 
Atti.     L,  2-LI,  2. 
Milwaukee.— Public  museum. 

Annual  report.     XXVII.     1909. 
Bulletin.     I,  2. 

IT* 


XX  Additions  to  the  Library, 

Missouri. — Botanical  garden. 

Annual  report.     XXII.     1911. 
University. 

Bulletin,    Engineering    experiment    station    series.     1,  1— II,  2; 

Science  series.     I,  1— II,  2. 
Laws  Observatory.     Bulletin.     17—19. 
Studies.     Science  series.     II,  2. 
MoDENA. — R.  Accademia  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 
Memorie.     Ser.  III.     T.  IX. 
Societd  dei  naturalist  i. 

Atti.     Eendiconti.     Ser.  IV.     T.  XIII.     1911. 
MoNS. — Sociefe  des  sciences,  des  arts  et  des  lettres  du  Hainaut. 

Memoires  et  publications.     LXII,  1911. 
MonT  AH  A..— A  gricultu7-al  college. 

Experiment  Station.     Circular.     10—16.     1911-12. 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 
Annual  report.     XVII,   1910. 
Bulletin.     86. 
University. 

Bulletins.     69-70.     1911. 
Montevideo.—  Museo  Nacional. 

Anales.     IV,  3. 
MoNTPELLiER. — Academie  des  sciences  et  lettres. 

Bulletin  mensual.     1911,  9-12;    1912,  1-5. 
Moscow.— (Soc/e^e  I.  des  naturalistes. 

Bulletin.     1908,  2-3 ;  1909,  N.  S.,  T.  XXIIl ;  1910,  1-4. 
K.   Universitdt. 

Meteorologisclies  Observatorium.     Beobachtungen.     1908—9. 
MuNSTER,  I.  W. —  Westfdlischer  Provinzial-  Verein  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Kunst. 

Jahresbericlit.     XXXIX.     1910-11. 
Munich. — K.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaft  en. 

Historisclie  Klasse.     Abhandlungen.     XXV.     Index. 
Mathematisch-pbysikalisclie  Klasse.    Abhandlungen.    XXV,  6,  8, 
1910-12;  Suppl.  n,  Bd.  3-7.    Index  to  Bd.  1;  Sitzungsberichte. 
1910,  10-15;  1911,  1-2. 
Philosopliiscli-pliilologiscli    und    historisclie    Klasse.      Abhand- 
lungen.   XXV,  1-4,  6-7,  XXVI,  1-2, 1909-12  :  Abhandlungen, 
Sitzungsberichte.     1910,  8—14;  Sitzungsberichte.     1911,  1-12. 
K.  Hof-  und  Staafsbibliothek. 

Catalogus  codicum  manuscriptorum.     T.  I.     Pars  VI.     1912. 
Na'scy.— Academie  de  Stanislas. 

Memoires.     Ser.  VI,  T.  8.     1910-11. 
Naples. — K.  Accademia  di  scienze  morali  e  politiche. 
Atti.    XLI.     1912. 
Rendiconto.     L.     1912. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXI 

Naples. — ^.  Accadtmia  ddle  scienze  fisiche  e  matematiche. 
Eendiconto.     Ser.  III.     T,  XVU,  1-XVIII,  2. 
R.  Istituto  dHncoraggiamento. 

Atti.     Ser.  VI.     T.  LXII.     1910. 
Naturae  Novitates.     1911,  8-1912,  14. 
Nedbrandenburg, —  Verein  der  Freunde  der  Naturgeschichte. 

Arcliiv.     LXV,  1-2,  1911. 
Nedchatel. — Societe  neuchateloise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

Bulletin.     XXXVIII,  1910-11. 
New  Brighton. — Staten  Island  Association  of  arts  and  sciences. 
Proceedings,  III,  3—4. 
Museum  bulletin.     35—49. 
New  Brunswick,  N.  J. — Natural  history  society. 

Bulletin.     XXVIII,  VI,  part  3;  XXIX,  VI,  part  3. 
New  York. — Americaii  geographical  society. 

Bulletin.     XLIII,  7-XLIV,  8.     1911-12. 
American  museum  of  natural  history. 

Anthropological  papers.     V,  2 ;  VII,  2 ;  VHI ;  IX,  1 ;  XII,  1. 
Bulletin.     XXVII,  XXVIII,  XXX.     1910-11. 
Guide  leaflet.     36. 
Reports.     XLII-XLIII.     1910-11. 
Academy  of  sciences. 

Annals.     XX,  3;  XXI,  pp.  87-263. 
Botanical  garden. 

Bulletin.     26-27.     1911-12. 
State  museum. 

Annual  report.     LXIII,  1-4.     1909. 
Memoirs.     IX,  2.     1907, 
Public  library. 

Bulletin.     XV,  7-XVI,  6.     1911-12. 
American  geographical  society. 

Bulletin.     XLIII,  7-XLIV,  6.     1911-12. 
Rockefeller  institide  for  medical  research. 

Studies.     XIII-  XV. 
Rockefeller    sanitary   commission   for   the   eradication    of   hookworm 
disease. 
Publication.     2,  5—6. 
New  Zealand  Institute.     Transactions  and  proceedings.     XLIII.     1911. 
Newcastle-dpon-Tyne.— iVorf/t  of  England  institute  of  mining  and  mecha- 
nical engineers. 

Report.     1911-12. 

Transactions.     LXI,  5-9;  LXII,  1-5.     1911-12. 
North  Carolina. —  University. 

Philological  Club.     Studies  in  philology,  VIII.     1911. 


XXII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

North  Carolina.— <S'/a?e  historical  Society. 

Collections.    III.     1910. 
University. 

Quarterlj^  journal.     II,  1-4.     1911-12. 
Northampton. — Northamptonshire  natural  history  society  and  field  club. 

Journal.     XVI.     125-8. 
^Norwich. — Norfolk  and  Norwich  Naturalists  society. 

Transactions.     IX,  2—3. 
Ndremberg. — Naturhistorische  Gesellschaft. 

Abliandlung.     XIX,  1-3. 
Jahresbericht.     1882-4;  1891;  1898-9. 

Mitteilungen.     1908,  2-5;  1909,  1. 
Nyt  Magazin  for  naturvidenskaberne.     XXXVII— L,  1. 
Oberlin. —  Wilson  ornithological  club. 

Wilson  bulletin.     XXIII,  3-XXIV,  5.     1911-12. 
Odessa. — Societe  des  nafuralistes  de  la  Nouvelle-Russie. 

Memoires.  XXXIV-XXXVI ;  Index  to  I-XXX  ;  Suppl.  to  XXXIV. 
L'observatoire  meteorologique  et  magnetique  de  I'universite  Imperiale. 

Annuaire.     1910. 
Oklahoma. — Geological  Survey. 

Bulletin.     3,  7-8. 
Historical  society. 

Historia.     I,  3—6 ;  II,  7. 
Oporto. — Academia  polytechnica. 

Annaes  scientificos.     VI,  2— VII,  1. 
OsNABRiJCK. — Naturwissenschaftlicher  Verein. 

Jalu-esbericbt.     XVI-XVII.     1903-10. 
Oxford. —  University. 

Observatory.     Astrograpliic  catalogue.     VII.     1911. 

Radcliffe  Library.     Catalogue  of  books  added  during  1911. 

Radcliffe   observatory.    Meteorological  observations.     XLIX— L. 
Paisley. — Philosophical  institution. 

Annual  report.     CII-HI,  1910-11. 
Palermo. — Accademia  di  scienze,  lettere  e  belle  arti. 

Atti.     Ser.  III.     T.  IX. 

BoUetino.     1907-10. 
Paris. — Ecole  poly  technique. 

Journal.     II.     Ser.  XV. 
Museum  d'histoire  naturelle. 

Bulletin.     1911,  1-4,  6-7. 

Laboratoire     de     phanerogamie.      Notulae     systematicae,     par 
H.  Lecomte.     II,  3-8. 

Eapport  annuel.     II-III.     1910-11. 
Observatoire. 

Eapport  annuel.     1911. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXI II 

Paris. — Societe  zoologique  de  France. 

Bulletin.     XXXV. 

Memoires.     XXIII.     1910. 
Pasadena.  —  Throop  instihde. 

Bulletin.     51-54,  56.     1911-12. 
Fassav. —Naturtvisse7isehaftlicher  Verein.     I— XIX,  XXI,  1857-1911. 
Perth. — Department  of  mines,   Western  Australia. 

Reports.     (3). 

Annual  progress  report.     1910. 

Bulletin.     15,  20,  23,  31,  34,  36,  38,  39,  41. 
Peru. — Ministerio  de  Fomento. 

Cuerpo  de  Ingenieros  de  Ninas.     Boletin.     77. 
Peterhead. — Btcchan  Club.     Museum. 

Transactions.     I,  2. 
Philadelphia. — Academy  of  natural  sciences. 

Journal.     2d  ser.    XIV,  3. 
American  Philosophical  society. 

Proceedings.     L,  199— LI,  205 ;  General  index  to  I— L. 

Transactions.     N.  S.,  XXII,  1-2. 
Franklin  Institute. 

Journal.     Vol.  172,  2-174,  2.     1911-12. 
Geographical  Society. 

Bulletin.     IX,  3-4,  1911. 
Pietermaritzborg. — Natal  government  museum. 

Annals.     II,  3. 
Pisa. — Societd  Toscana  di  scienze  naturali. 

Atti,    Memorie.       XXVI-XXVII.       1910-11  ;     Processi    verbali. 
XX,  2-XXI,  2. 
Pittsburg. — Carnegie  museum. 

Publications.     65-66,  68-70. 
Carnegie  institute. 

Founder's  Day.     XVI.     1912. 
Western  Pennsylvania  engineers'  society. 

Proceedings.     XXVII,  6-XXVIlI,  6. 
Plymouth. — Marine  biological  association  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

Publications.     II;  N.S.  I,  1-4;  II,  1-2;  III,  1-4  and  special 
number;  V-IX,  2.     1888—1911. 
Portici. — R.  Scuola  superior e  di  agricoltura. 

Annali.     Ser.  II.     T.  IX.     1910. 
Potsdam. — Astrophysikalisches  Observatorium.  I 

Publikationen.     XXII,  64-5. 
VRAQ.—Deutscher  natunvissenschaftlich-medizinischer  Verein  fiir  Bohmen. 

Lotos.     LIX.     1911. 
K.  K.  Sternivarte. 

Maguetische  und  meteorologische  Beobachtungen.     1910-11. 


XXIV  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Frag.  — Ceske  Spolecnosty  etifotnologicke. 

6asopis.     VIII,  2-4 ;  IX,  1.     1911-12. 
Ceskd  spolecnost  nduk. 
Jahresbericht.     1911. 
Mathematisch  -  naturwissenscliaf tliche   Klasse.     Sitzungsbericht. 

1911. 
Philosophisch-geschiclitliclie  und  philologische  Klasse.   Sitzungs- 
berichte.     1911. 

Peovidence. — Roger  Williams  park  museum. 
Bulletin.     II,  1;  III,  1—5. 

Quebec— (Socie^e  de  geographic. 
Bulletin.     VI,  1-3. 

Keichenbach  i.  Vogtl. —  Verein  fur  Natur-  mid  Altertumskunde. 
Bericht.     VI.     1909. 
Mitteilungen.     Heft  3-4,  1877-84. 

Renkema,  E.  H.    Observationes  criticae  et  exegeticae  ad  C.  Valerii  Flacci 
Aragonautica.     1906. 

Riga. — Natur  forscher-  Verein. 

Arbeiten.     XIII.     1911. 
Korrespondenzblatt.     LIV.     1911. 

Rio  de  Janeiro. — Institnto  Oswaldo  Cruz. 
Memoria.     Ill,  2.     1911. 
Instituto  historico  e  geographico  Brazileiro. 

Revista.      XI ;  XXVII ;  XLIII,    2 ;    XLVIII-LII,  4  ;    LIII,  1 ; 
LIV,  2 ;  LIX-LXXIII,  2 ;  LXXIV,  1 ;  Special  volume,  1908, 
parts  1—2, 
Mtiseu  nacional. 

ArcMvos.     XIV,  XV. 

Rochester. — Academy  of  Science. 

Proceedings.     IV,  233-41;  V,  1-58. 

Rome. — B.  Accademia  dei  lincei. 

Atti.      Ser.   V.     Rendiconti.      Classe    de    scienze   fisiclie,   mate- 

matiche  e  uaturali.     XX,  11— XXI,  5,  7—12. 
Atti.     Rendiconto  dell'  adunanza  sollene.     1911,  2 ;  1912,  2. 
Accademia  Pontifka  dei  nuovi  lincei. 
Atti.     LXIV,  1-7,     1910-11. 

Rotterdam. — Bataafseh  genootschap  der  proefondervinderlijke  wijsbegeerfe. 
Nieuwe  verhandelingen.     2de  Reeks,  Deel  V— VI.  3. 

St.  Gallen. — St.  Gallische  Naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft. 
Jahrbuch.     1910. 

St.  Lodis. — Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.     XX,  4—6. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXV 

St.  Peteesbdrg. — Akadeyniia  nauk. 

Classe  physico-mathematique.     Bulletin.     Ser.  VI.     1912,  1—11. 
Memoires,  Ser.  VIII.  T.  XXV,  9-10  ;  XXVI,  1-2  ;  XXVII,  1-2  ; 
XXIX,  1-3;  XXX,  1-3. 
Classe  historique-philologique.   Memoi^ra.    Ser.  VIII.    T.  X,  2—3. 
I.  Botanic  garden. 

Hortus  petropolitani.     Acta.     XXVIII,  4. 
Institut  des  mines  de  I' Impiratrice  Catherine  II. 

Annales.     Ill,  1—5. 
Observatoire  physique  central  Nicolas. 

Annales.     1907  and  1908,  I-II ;  II,  1-2. 
Comite  geologique. 

Bulletin.     XXIX,  5-XXX,  5.     1910-11. 

Memoires.     N.  S.     LIII-LV,  LX,  LXI,  LXVI-LXXUI. 

Salem. — Essex  Institute. 

Annual  report.     1912. 

Santiago  de  Chile. — Sociedad  cientifica  de  Chile. 

Actes.   VIII,  5  ;  IX  ;  XI ;  XIII,  3  ;  XIII,  4-5  ;  XIV,  5  ;  XV,  3-4  ; 

XVI,  1-5.  1898-1906. 
Sociedad  de  fomento  fabril. 
Boletin.     XXIX,  1,  4-7.     1912. 

Sao  Padlo.— itfMseM  Paulista. 

Revista.     VIII.     1911. 
Sociedade  scientifica. 
Revista.     VI.     1911. 

Savporo. —Tohoku  I.  University. 

College  of  agriculture.     Journal.     IV,  1—8. 

Science  report.     I,  1—2. 

Mathematical  journal.     I,  1— II,  1.     1911—12. 
Sars,  Gr.  O.,   Account  of  the  Crustacea   of  Norway.     V,  31—36,  1911. 
Schwarzschild,  K.,  Aktinometrie  der  Sterne.     Teil  B.     1912. 
Shrewsbory. — Caradoc  and  Severn  valley  field  club. 

Record  of  bare  facts.     1909,  19  ;  1911,  21. 

Transactions.     V,  3. 

Siena. — Accademia  dei  fisiocratici. 

Atti.     Ser.  V.     II,  7-III,  6. 
Universite. 

Annuaire.     I-VI.     1904-10. 

Faculte  de  droit.     Annuaire.     V-VI.     1908-10. 

Paculte  historico-philologique.     Annuaire.     V— VI.     1908—10. 

Paculte  physico-mathematique.     Annuaire.     V— VI.     1908—10. 

Sofia. —  Universite. 

Annuaire.     VII,  1910-11. 

Faculte  physico-mathematique.     Annuaire.     VII,  1910—11. 


XXVI  Additions  to  the  Library. 

SoDTH  Dakota. — Geological  Survey. 

Bulletin.     4.  1908. 
Stbttin. — Entomologischer  Verein. 

Entomologische  Zeitung.     XLII-LXXII.     1881-1911. 
Stockholm. — K.  Bibliotheket. 

Arsberiittelse.     1909,  1911. 
Entomologisk  forening. 

Entomologisk  Tidskrift.     XXXII.     1911  &  Register,  XI-XXX. 
1890-1909. 
K.  Svenska  Vetenskaps-Akademi. 

Arsbok.     1911. 

Arkiv  for  botanik.     X,  2-4.     1911. 

Arkiv  for  kemi,  mineralogi  och  geologi.     IV,  2.     1911. 

Arkiv  lor   matematik,    astronomi   och   fysik.     VI,  4 ;    VII,  1—2. 
1911. 

Nobelinstitut.     Meddelanden.     II,  1. 

Handliugar.     XLVI,  4-11 ;  XLVII,  1. 

Meteorologiska  lakttagelser  i  Sverige.     1910,  B.  52  and  appendix. 
Sveriges  offentliga  bibliothek. 

Accessions-katalog.     24-25,  1909-10. 
Stone.  — A^or^/t  Staffordshire  field  club. 

Annual  report  and  transactions.     XLVI.     1911—12. 
Stbassburg.— £.   Universitdt. 

Sternwarte.     Annalen.     IV,  1,  1911. 
Stuttgart. —  Verein  fur  vaterldndische  Naturkunde  in   Wiirttemberg. 

Jahreshefte.     LXVII  and  Beilage ;  LXVIII.    1911-12. 
Sydney. — Australian  museum. 

Memoir.     IV,  13-16.     1911. 

Records.     VIII,  13;  IX,  1-2. 

Report  of  the  trustees.     LVII.     1911. 

Special  catalogue.    No.  1,  vol.  Ill,  2—4. 
Linnean  Society  of  Neiv  South  Wales. 

Proceedings.     XXXV,  3-XXXVI,  2. 
Royal  society  of  Neiv  South  Wales. 

Journal  and  proceedings.     XLIII,  2— XLV,  1. 

Texas. —  University. 

Bulletin.     221,  228,  229,  231-2.     1912. 

Tokyo.— Deutsche  Gesellschaft  fiir  Natur-  und  Volkerkunde  Ostasiens. 
Mitteilungen.     XIII-XIV. 
University. 

College  of  science.     Journal.     XXVIJ,  15  ;  XX VIII,  7  ;  XXX,  1  ; 

XXXI ;  XXXII,  1,  5 ;  XXXII,  2,  4. 
Mediziniscbe  Eacultat.     Mitteilungen.     IX,  2-3 ;  X,  1—2. 

Toronto.— Canadian  Institute. 

Transactions.     Nos.     20—21. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXVII 

ToDLODSE.  -Academie  des  sciences,  inscriptions  et  belles-lettres. 
Memoires.     Ser.  10,  T.  X. 
TJniversite. 

Bibliotheque  meridionale.     Ser.  II,  T.  XIV.     1910. 
Annuaire.     1911—12. 
Conseil.     Eapport  annuel.     1911. 
Theses  (69). 
Triest.—  Osservatorio  maritimo. 

Eapporto  annuale.     1907  (1911). 
Tufts  College.    Studies.     Scientific  series.     II F,  2. 
Teondheim.  —  j^Tors/re  videnskabers  selskab. 

Skrifter.     1910. 
Turin.—  Universita. 

Musei   di    zoologia   ed  anatomia  comparata.     Bolletino.     XXVI, 
634-44 ;  and  Index. 
JJps&LA.  —  Universitet. 

Arsskrift.     1910. 

Geologiska  institution.     Bulletin.     XL     1912. 
K.  Vetenskaps  societaten. 

Nova  acta.     Ser.  IV.     T.  II,  2. 
TJtrecht.  —  Ohservatoire. 

Recherches  astronomiques.     IV— V. 
Provinciaal  Utrecht sch  genootschap  van  kunsten  en  wetenschappen. 
Aanteekeningen  van  het  verliandelde.     1911. 
Verslag  van  het  verliandelde.     1911. 
Venice.— i2.  Istituto  Veneto  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 
Atti.     LXVII,  6-LXXX,  8.     1907-10. 
Concorsi  a  premio.     May  28.     1911. 
R.  Istituto  Veneto  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 

Osservazioni  nieteorologiche  e  geodinamiclie.     1907—8. 
Vicenza. — Accademia  Olimpica. 

Atti.     N.  S.,  II.     1909-10. 
Vienna.— A*".  K.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften. 

Almanach.     1910-11.     Eegister  zu  Bd.  I-LX. 
Erdbeben-Kommission.     Mitteiluugen.     XXXVIIl-XLIII. 
Mathematisch-naturvv^issenschaftliche  Klasse.  Anzeiger.  XLVIII, 
1-27.      Denkschriften.       LXXXIV-LXXXVI,    1,     LXXXVII. 
Sitzungsberichte.     CXXI,  Abt.  I,  1-3,  lib,  1-2,  II a,  1. 
K.  K.  Central- Anstalt  fiir  Meteorologie. 

Jahrbuch.     N.F.,  XL VI,  1909. 
K.  K.  Oeologische  Reichsanstalf. 

Jahrbuch.     LXI.  3-LXII,  1,  1911-12. 
Verhandlungen.     1911,  6-1912,  5. 
Naturhistorisches  Hof-Museuni. 
Annalen.     XXIV,  3-XXV,  4. 


XXVIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Vienna.—^.  K.  Zoologisch-hotanische  Gesellschaft. 
Verhandlungen.     LXI.     1911. 
Verein  zur  Verbreitung  naturwissenschaftlicher  Kenntnisse. 
Schriften.     LI.     1911. 

Virginia. —  University. 

Philosophical     society.      Bulletin.      Humanistic    series.      I,    2, 
pp.  51—7  ;  Scientific  series,    I,  6—9,  pp.  137—242  ;  Proceedings, 
1910-11. 
Vliet,    J.,   Van    der,    Studia    critica    in    Dionysii  Halicarnassensis   opera 

rhetorica. 
Warren. — Academy. 

Transactions.     I,  3.     1909-10. 

Washington. — Bureau  of  American  ethnology. 
Bulletin.     51. 
Departm,ent  of  agriculture. 

Library.    Bulletin.     54-75;  Monthly  bulletin.     II,  5-III,  6. 
Librarian's  report,  1911. 
Geological  survey. 

Annual  report.     XXXII.     1911. 

Bulletins.    468-9  ;  472-3  ;  475-7  ;  479-97  ;  499-500  ;  506  ;  509  ; 

511-12. 
Geologic  atlas,  folio.     177—82. 
Professional  papers.     70,  72—3,  75. 
Publications.     N.  S.  1.     1912. 

Water-supply  and  irrigation  papers.     265—80 ;  282—8. 
Library  of  Congress. 

Report  of  Librarian.     1911. 
Washington. — National  museum. 
Bulletin.     75-8. 

National  Herbarium.     Contributions.     XVI,  1—3. 
Proceedings.     XXXIX-XLI. 
Report.     1911. 
Naval  observatory. 

Publications.     Ser.  II.     Vol.  VI. 
Report  of  Superintendent.     1911. 
National  academy  of  sciences. 

Memoir.     X. 
Weather  bureau.     Department  of  agriculture. 

Mount  Weather  observatory.     Bulletin.     IV,  4—6. 
Wesley  CoWe^e.— Bulletin.     VI,  1. 
Wiesbaden. — Nassauischer  Verein  fiir  Naturkunde. 

Jahrbuch.     LXIV.     1911. 
Wisconsin. — Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.      XVI,    part    II,    1-6.     1909-10;    Indey    to  XVI, 
part  II. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXIX 

Wisconsin. — Geological  and  natural  history  survey. 

Bulletin.     23-4. 
Natural  history  society. 

EuUetin.     IX,  3-4.     1911. 
VfoKiNQ.— South-eastern  union  of  scientific  societies. 

South-eastern  naturalist.     1911. 
Worcester,  Maiss.— American  antiquarian  society. 

Transactions  and  collections.     IX— X.  XII.     r.KKt— 11. 

Proceedings.     XXI,  2.     1911. 
ZvRiCR.— Naturforschende  Gesellschaft . 

Vierteljahrsschrift.     LV,  3-LVI,  3.     1911. 


'\-i,<^yJ^  ^fjf^' 


Binder 
C^ylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.Y. 

Pat.  No.  877188  ' 


BS2795  .4.F75 

The  literary  relations  of  "The  First 

imii"liriirili'°'°^'"'  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00034  0358 


